Yet another lens question, nikon specific

Is the 17-55 2.8 long enough for indoors at the church or do I need the 70-200

2.8? I can only justify one of them.

 

I realize this is an ongoing question, but I find myself needing a more

specific answer than I am finding in the forum.

I have a D70 and 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR and love it. 99% of my weddings have been

on the beach, full sun, some towards sunset, and all is good. I use fill flash

with a Lightsphere which covers me indoors as well.

 

My last wedding, I was struggling a little inside a church with no flash. At

the distance I was and the lack of flash was not allowing me to get perfect

exposures. As I am looking to do more traditional weddings to balance out the

beach stuff, I am looking at these two lenses and need assistance deciding.

 

Add to the mix, is it worth considering a Sigma or Tamron lens considering I

currently only have the need for speed on occasion? Over the past three years,

I have shot about 150 beach weddings and the 18-200 covers me 99% of the time.

If you are happy with the lens I would keep it. A nice Manfrotto tripod will only set you back $300. The pro I work with shoots a lot with the 80-200 on a tripod. Yesterday was one of the better lit churches and it was still boaderline.

 

Even a 180 f/2.8 or 135 f/2 and a tripod would be far less than the 70-200.

If you are shooting from way in the back of a church the 17-55 isn't long enough, and the 70-200 would be handy. If you work with a tripod (so VR isn't necessary) any 70/80-200 would work.

 

For long work I use a combination of a 85/1.8 & 180/2.8 and this also works well. There are lots of these primes on the used market, and together they cost less than 3rd party 70-200/2.8. The 85/1.8 is handy on its own and small and light compared to a long, fast zoom.

The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is a beast of a lens. I would suggest renting one before buying; try it out and see if the end result is worth the extra bulk, weight and price tag for you.

 

I'm not a "lens freak," so I don't keep up with all the testing data and all that, but I think there might be some happy medium choices out there, like the Nikon 85 1.8, Nikon 105 2.8 or Sigma 50-150 2.8, which cost a touch less, are much smaller in size, and weigh a whole lot less.

 

We use a Nikon 85 1.8 on one of our cameras during the ceremony and it's been a great perfomer in low-light conditions.

I use my 17-55 for all my wedding stuff, except ceremony. I use it for formals, getting ready, and reception. During the ceremony, I use if for a few wide angle shots, but mainly I stick to my 80-200.

 

I have an older version, the 80-200 ED lens. I am going to upgrade to the 70-200 VR before next spring.

 

So, you could probably get by with your 18-200 for all the getting ready, formals, and reception shots if you use your flash and lightsphere. Or, you could get the older 80-200 used, and buy the 17-55.

 

I love the way the 17-55 focus fast. It is quick and silent. It works great in low light, like at the reception. It is my best lens for that. I am hoping that the 70-200 will be the same way.

If you're not using a tri-pod, get one! It's not a lens issue. Manfrotto has a $25 rebate right now for a head and base purchased at the same time also. I just had to replace my old 2021 after 20 years finally.

Sam, a few questions/comments

 

1 - Will you be at the back of the church for ALL your church weddings? If you will be upfront, the 70-200 will be too long for the up front position.

 

2 - How DARK are the churches? Even with a 2.8 lens and ISO 1600, a DARK church can still be too dark. That is when the 35/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and similar FAST glass are needed.

 

3 - In a DARK church, from the back, bring a tripod and cable release. I did not, and I ended up shooting all the way down to f4 @ 1/15 sec @ ISO-1600 for some of my shots. f4 is my max apperture. Next time in an unknown church, I will have my tripod with me.

 

4 - When it is dark, you may NOT want to use flash. The reason is you may blow out the heads of people between you and the subject. I have a few shots where some guy stuck his hand into the aisle with a video camera, and the hand was so over exposed it was completely blown out.

 

5 - If you will be only using it infrequently, rather than the 70-200VR consider a used 80-200/2.8

Thanks for the input. I am leaning towards something in the smaller zoom range. I do have and use tripod, I just don't like them :) I also have a 50 mm 1.8 that I used at the wedding and it worked great, but the lack of zoom was annoying.

Since I haven't had a great need for this type of lens, I am leaning toward a used Tamron from eBay. It would sit in my bag most days.