Which lens for the next puchase?

I am just getting into wedding photography and have limited

experience. I am using a Nikon D70 with the 18-70 kit lens plus a

50mm f1.8. I feel that I need a prime lens somewhat wider than my

50mm. I am thinking about a 20mm or 24mm. I am worried abou the

distortion that is often apparent when these lens are used on 35mm

film cameras. I understand that the 1.5 crop factor on my digital

camera will affect the field of view compared to a film camera. But

what about the distorted shapes of peoples heads and legs that is

typical when used on film cameras? Will I get the same distortion on

my D70? Should I be considering other focal lengths?

I would suggest that you get a telephoto lens. A good part of wedding photography is ceremony events which often don't allow flash. A good tele and tripod is needed for that.

 

At my last wedding I did many handheld tele photos at 800ISO digital, and it worked great.

 

Your 18-70 should be fine for all other situations.

 

You don't mention flash...that is essential.

 

Don't get so much equipment that you can't concentrate on the action. In weddings, "Less is More." IMO.

Thanks Todd

 

I have a Nikon SB 600 and a Sunpak 383 for backup. I have been dreaming of the 70-200 VR. Will probably get it some day, but I am having trouble justifying it right now.

You never mentioned having a second camera body. That should be your next purchase! Back-up equipment is something you should never be without. The lens can wait.

 

A 24mm lens will show some distortion towards the corners/edges of a 35mm frame for sure! On the smaller sized digital format it's about the same coverage as a 35mm lens would be on 35mm film cameras, and many pros use the 35mm lens as the "normal" lens. Go wider than that and yes, you might start noticing distortion in the shots. You can check the effect by looking through your kit zoom at those focal lengths. Splurge and print up a few shots made with the zoom at those focal lengths just to see how you like the perspective. Somehow it just looks different when you're holding a real print in your hands rather than viewing the same image on your computer screen.

In the Nikon forum the Nikon 35mm f2 was recomended. Also, Sigma just came out with a 30mm f1.4 that seems like a good bet. It lists for $450.

I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 on a D70s and really like it. <a href="http://

www.flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus/tags/sigma30mmf14dc/">Some samples are here.</a>

<p>

But I predict you will fairly soon want a tele that open to f/2.8 so you can get intimate shots

without actually getting intimate with the couple.

The ideal setup (for me) is the 24-70 and 70-200 range zooms.

 

That said. On a digital the 24-120 can do a whole wedding (less is more!), so there's no changing of lenses. But then I believe you should do some close-ups of the rings, flowers etc. so a macro comes in handy as well - I use the 105 micro - so there will be some lens changing anyway.

 

Remember, when using a wide, you will get distortion. Use it wisely to achieve effect. If you intend to do larger groups with a wide, the group setup can help achieve a better result.

 

The flash is VERY important! Invest in a SB600 or SB800.

 

Regards

Wide angle distortion is pretty much the same on a 1.5 dSLR as on a full frame 35mm. The trick is to keep the important subjects centered in the frame, and to keep the heads and bodies parallel to the sensor/film plane. Proximity is important too - don't get too close with focal lengths wider than 35mm. But some folks even use fisheyes for weddings and get away with it because they're careful about subject placement.

 

I used my 24-120 VR Nikkor on my D2H throughout most of the ordeal last Friday - preshow, wedding, some of the reception. Because the reception was in a smaller room I later switched to the 18-70 DX for full room shots.

 

On my F3HP I switched between a 17mm f/3.5 Tamron Adaptall and a 50/1.8D AF Nikkor, which manually focuses pretty well too.

 

And I used a 50/1.4 Zuiko on my OM-1 loaded up with Ilford XP-2 Super.

 

Tell you the truth, even tho' the chapel where the ceremony was held was pretty huge for a rural church (something like 125 feet long, 100 feet wide, with a 20-25 foot ceiling), the 17mm was probably a mistake. Because it took in the overhead lights, despite the lens hood I was getting a lot of flare. That's when I switched to the 50/1.8. The only real use I got from the 17mm was when I did shots of the entire group, wedding party and guests, from overhead in the tech booth, with everybody looking back at the camera. Those looked pretty good and there was no flare because I was aiming down, away from the lights.

 

Anyway, I consider the 24-120 VR nearly ideal. The focal range is just about perfect for most situations and the VR is essential for me because I have trouble handholding steadily. I just wish it was a non-variable aperture f/2.8 lens. And, yeh, it could stand to have less barrel distortion and field curvature at the widest end. And it couldn't hurt if it were a bit sharper wide open at both extremes, 24mm and 120mm. But it's pretty comparable to the 18-70, only much more versatile for my preferences.

 

This was the first wedding I've shot without using a long telephoto. In the past I've carried a 100-300 zoom, a 70-210 zoom and a 180 tele and always found a use for them. But this time, even tho' the chapel was large, I don't feel like I missed many shots for lack of a long lens. I just walked up closer when I needed tighter framing. But I would definitely want a longer zoom or tele for my next outdoor wedding or reception - folks tend to spread out more and I always seem to be on the wrong side of the lawn when something interesting happens.