Need New Lens for Wedding Photography

g._snow · June 28, 2009

I have been second shooting with a wedding photographer and would like to start shooting weddings myself. I

currently have the D40 and kit lens (18-55) that came with it. I've pretty much decided to buy the D90 (still

contemplating the D80 if I can buy a kit with a suitable lens.) Now I need to decide what type of lens I need. My

budget for camera and lens is around 1,500.

I know I want good glass. I'm sick of the camera aberration. For wedding photography, would I be better off with a

fast prime lens to shoot in low-light, or should I spring for a zoom lens. I've got the 18-55, so I feel like p

urchasing a lens that goes a few stops lower is kind of a waste...unless it would put an end to all the aberration I'm se

eing. Then again, if I'm shooting from the back of a church I really need a zoom.

<p

>This probably sounds like it belongs in the wedding forum, but because I want a nikon autofocus lens I wa

s hoping to get some specific suggestions on nikon lenses.

david_schilling___chicago_ · June 28, 2009

Here's a place to start reading: <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</a>

errol young · June 28, 2009

There is a big difference between the D90 and the D80 and it is not just MPs. My D300 has the same sensor and it just does a much better job of exposure.

saad_m · June 29, 2009

get an f2.8 zoom, and the 1.8 35mm and the 1.8 50mm, and if you can affford it, the 70-200 f2.8

natalie_l · June 29, 2009

I'd consider the 24-70 and/or 70-200 f/2.8. If you're unsure, you could rent either lens before taking the plunge?

g._snow · June 29, 2009

That was good reading, thanks David.

I've decided to hold off on a telephoto lens for now. I only have money for one lens right now. I'm torn between a fast prime lens and a wide-to-telephoto zoom ( like the 24-70 f/2.8, thanks Natalie.)

What is the difference between a wide-angle lens and a wide-angle zoom lens? Under wide-angle lenses on nikon's website there is a 35mm f/1.8, but it doesn't list the focal length range.

picturesque · June 29, 2009

I don'tuse Nikon, but I've seen images from a D90, and Errol is right. Big difference. The D90 has the newest sensor technology. I'd get it.

Re the zoom lens purchase. Suggest a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Cheap, and almost as good as the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikon zoom. The key is not image quality but the fact that these lenses are constant aperture f2.8 zooms. For a cropped sensor camera, the 24-70mm Nikon does not offer the best range. Unless you know for sure your next camera purchase will be a D700 or full frame, I'd get the 17-50mm range and sell it when you do go full frame. The convenience of having that range in the meantime is well worth it.

You do not NEED a tele zoom if you are at the back of a church. A tele prime will be fine, and faster, too. As has been said many times before, a good beginning, value kit would be a 17-50mm range f2.8 zoom, the 50mm f1.8 (cheap but good), and the 85mm f1.8. You can cover a lot with that.

g._snow · June 29, 2009

I'm sold on the D90. This is my first lens purchase and I'm getting lost in translation...prime, tele prime, wide angle vs. wide angle zoom, etc. Can anyone suggest a good reading that goes into lens types and so forth?

ellery · June 29, 2009

FYI - I have a D90 - granted I am a beginner - but I absolutely love it - I do not love the kit lens as you all discussed as the fstop increases with higher focal lengths and you cannot manipulate depth of fied very dramatically - can you give me some of your money as I want a new lens too :) - for real though - I hear that the f1.8 50mm prime (prime means it has a fixed focal lengh - ie NO zoom - your feet zoom) is great especially for low light no flash ceremony type setting - it sells for about 130-150 bucks. Tele refers to telephoto I believe - which imlpies zoom (I would like a book on lenses too to give more detail - let me know).

I presume too that "wide angle lens" would provide "wide angle" focal lengths (ie lower focal lenghths) only vs. "wide angle tele" would be provide focal lengths low to moderately high as well. Again, I am a beginner so others please correct my assumptions if they are wrong.

Tell me what you end up getting and how you like it as I hope to get a couple new lenses by Xmas - Oh, have you got a flash for the D90? If not, would certainly factor that into your budget - good luck.

William Michael · June 30, 2009

This is my first lens purchase and I'm getting lost in translation... Can anyone suggest a good reading that goes into lens types and so forth?

No I don’t, but for a dinosaur I can type pretty fast, here goes . . .

Definitions:

PRIME lenses have a fixed focal length – e.g. spoken as “a 35mm lens” or “a 35 F/2”

ZOOM lenses have a variable focal length – e.g. spoken as “a 70 to 200 zoom” or “a 70 to 200”

Relativities:

A WIDE lens or a WIDE ANGLE lens is one which covers a wider view than what we “see”, generally, with our eyes.

The technical term is Angle of View, (AoV) and this is measured in degrees – i.e. defining the spread of the lens’s “eye” from the camera. Because the film plane (or sensor) is a rectangle (or a square), there are actually three angles of view – Horizontal, Vertical and Diagonal.

Field of View (FoV) is used too, to describe the Vertical and Horizontal coverage at any particular Subject Distance (SD)

***

To describe a lens as a WIDE lens, is a RELATIVE term with respect to the lens’s FOCAL LENGTH depending upon the format of the camera with which it is being used. The “format” meaning the film or sensor’s size and shape.

For example, the Nikon D90 is an APS-C format Digital Camera and the D700 is 135 format Digital camera (commonly referred to as “Full Frame”) The sensor in the D90 is a smaller rectangle than the sensor in the D700.

So if you whack a 35mm lens on a D700 it is a Wide lens, but on a D90 the smaller sensor only “sees” the middle bit of the image and so the 35mm lens no longer acts as a wide lens, but is a “Normal” or “Standard” lens.

***

A NORMAL lens “sees” about the view our eyes see: on an APS-C camera, lenses having a focal length approximately in the range of 28mm to 35mm, are normal lenses (though on a D700 those lenses would be WIDE lenses).

A NORMAL lens on a D700 would be a lens whose FL is around 45mm to 58mm – these are approximates, there is no set rule, but rather a loose agreement in texts and amongst Photographers. . . so for example if I had a D700 and a 60mm lens and said “it is a bit longer than standard” and you said it is “a short tele” we would both be “correct”

***

A TELEPHOTO lens is one which sees a narrower view than what our eye sees – and again on a D90 that is a lens with a Focal length of about 50mm and longer, and on a D700 a lens with a focal length about 85mm and longer.

Then there are further adjectives to describe the wide and telephoto – usually: Ultra-wide; Short-telephoto; Mid-telephoto (or just “Telephoto”) and Super-telephoto.

Again these terms are a bit plasticine in nature, but generally most would agree, when used on a D90, that:

a 50mm to 85mm would be a Short-Telephoto

an 85mm to 200mm would be a (mid) Telephoto

a 200 to 300mm would be moving toward a Super-telephoto.

Now a point to note is that some commentary for the lenses you will be looking to buy for your D90 will speak of the lenses as if they were to be used on a D700 (or film SLR).

For example, Nikon’s 24 to 70F/2.8 will be commonly referred to as “a normal zoom” or "a standard zoom" – meaning that it is a zoom lens that covers the “normal” focal lengths – and a little bit wider and a little bit telephoto, also – but on a D90, this lens would be more a telephoto zoom.

So you see how “Wide” "Noramal" (or "Standard") and “Telephoto” can used to describe zoom lenses too.

***

APERTURE:

Maximum Aperture is often used to describe a lens: e.g. spoken as “this is a thirty five one point four” or “this is a thirty-five ef two” written as: 35F/1.4 and 35F/2, respectively.

The term “a fast lens” is often used – this means it has a big maximum aperture – FOR THE TYPE OF LENS IT IS. That last bit in capitals is important.

“Fast” ZOOM lenses are usually a bit slower than PRIME lenses in the SAME FOCAL RANGE.

As one example the 24 to 70F/2.8 is a “fast” lens: but a 50mmF/2.8 is not a fast lens – a 50mmF/1.4 is a “fast” lens.

Also, as lenses get wider and longer (more telephoto) a “fast” maximum aperture gets a bit smaller – e.g.: a 300mm F/4 lens is still reasonably fast, and a 500mmF/4 is very fast.

***

OTHER THINGS:

In the DSLR world, there are also lenses which are specifically designed for the SMALLER sensor, (the APS-C format). Nikon refer to this as “DX”. Now many of these lenses will fit onto a D700 or similar camera, but they will have a dark circle around the outside of the image - a “vignette” – because they have been designed such that their IMAGE CIRCLE only covers the smaller rectangle of the APS-C sensor.

On the other hand, most lenses made to fit a D700, and the like, will cover the smaller sized sensor.

***

BACK to ZOOM and their APERTURES and other stuff:

Zooms can also be classified by type, depending upon their MAXIMUM APERTURE.

Either they are:

> a FIXED maximum aperture throughout the zoom range.

Or they are:

> a VARYING maximum aperture throughout the zoom range.

(Aside: The former is commonly referred to as a “fixed aperture zoom” and the latter as a “variable aperture zoom”.

IMO both are incorrect descriptions – but I am not having that debate, just pointing out that correct descriptions are useful and not necessarily pedantic with no reason.

Mostly all zooms have a variable aperture – i.e. able to be varied by the user;

Very few zooms have a fixed aperture - i.e. ONE aperture only).

***

Now one important thing about a FIXED maximum aperture zoom is that it is also usually fast, too.

One downside of a VARYING maximum aperture zoom is it can be nearing fast at the wide end, but quite slow at the long end – which can be a frustration for a Wedding Photographer, during a Ceremony, when there is a NO FLASH rule: e.g. : <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00Tls3">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Tls3</a>

Another issue with the varying max. aperture zoom, can be the need to monitor and control the Tv (Shutter Speed) and / or the Flash and / or Flash Compensation when working in Av mode (Aperture Priority) – this is one point where I have seen a few catastrophes – as it usually happens during the Ceremony . . . there are a few threads on this particular issue.

***

Zooms can also be classified by their ZOOM COMPASS, which is the factor of the widest to the most telephoto Focal length: for example - a 24 to 70 is a x3 zoom or spoken as “a three times zoom” . . . the 18 to 105 would be a “six times zoom” – close enough to it, some might say a x5.8: but I have found these terms are usually used loosely, even by pedantic types, and an answer rounded to the nearest whole number would pass the theory exam question, IMO.

The wider the compass of the zoom the more engineering is required to make it both fast & sharp and a constant maximum aperture – so that’s why the fastest (and expensive) zooms are all short compass, as are these three canon examples:

16 to 35F/2.8L = x2.2 Compass

24 to 70F/2.8L = x3 Compass

70 to 200F/2.8L = x2.9 Compass

And as an example of how something has to give, (unless money is unlimited, perhaps), when the zoom’s compass is increased, so we have this Canon lens:

EF 35mm to 350mm F/3.5 to 5.6 L USM . . .

This is a x10 compass, and very high quality and reasonably fast, but what had to give in the design was the maximum aperture – it had to vary with the zoom length to cover that huge x10 compass.

***

BACK to your ORIGINAL question:

“I've pretty much decided to buy the D90 (still contemplating the D80 if I can buy a kit with a suitable lens.) Now I need to decide what type of lens I need”

If you negate your kit zoom, (i.e. begin with no lenses at all), then as the very first purchase you need fast and you need around a normal angle of view or a:

“fast standard zoom” for that camera.

So for that camera if you are considering a zoom then something around 17 to 55 ish F/2.8 would be appropriate, and is my recommendation.

Now, some Wedding Photographers do use a 24 to 70F/2.8 on an APS-C body, but you need to be aware that you compromise the ability to get a wider–wide shot, and that can be a problem, at times – remember that the 24 to 70 was designed as a “normal” or “standard” zoom in the film days . . . it is a bit telephoto on a D90.

Another option (and a dying fad) is to have a couple or three Primes: for an APS-C a good starting point would be a 24, 35 and 50; or 24, 50 and 85 or 20, 35 and 85 . . . but there really are not many wide options in Primes for APS-C cameras, so that is why many Pros use a 17 to 55 ish F/2.8 . . . to have that wider angle handy, when necessary.

On the other hand, if you want to continue using your kit zoom - and it should be quite sustainable re your problems, though not perfect, if used at F/7 through to F/11 - then you might consider supplementing that with a fast Prime, or two.

IMO, if you use the kit lens, the first fast prime you NEED is around a 28mm to 35mm, which is a “normal” lens for your camera – you can use this in low light and for portraits, and most importantly . . . in tight spaces (Small Churches with a NO FLASH rule).

The next Prime I suggest to supplement the kit lens would be a fast telephoto - an 85 is very good value for money and a good adjunct to a zoom ending at 50mm or 55mm.

I do not use Nikon, nor have any Tamron lenses (anymore) – but I trust Nadine’s opinion of the Tamron zoom she mentioned, and, more importantly agree with her that if you buy a zoom lens to replace the kit zoom one of the biggest improvements will be the fact you have a constant maximum aperture . . . of F/2.8.

“Then again, if I'm shooting from the back of a church I really need a zoom.”

This is incorrect.

It likely, in most Churches an 85mm lens will pull a shot that will be sufficient or can be cropped, when using a camera of the quality of a D90. . . even at 60ft away, you will frame a shot about 12 ft high by 20 ft wide (landscape), with an 85mm on a D90 – for a small Church the telephoto end of your main normal zoom (50mm or 55mm) would be sufficient . . . if you have a really long Church you have two “cheap” options - a third party extender for the 85, or rent. How many Churches where you shoot from more than 60ft do you cover, that is the question . . . because, the point is, you state that you have not much money to outlay for capital expenditure – so every $ must be getting you the best bang for the buck. In this regard I often refer to the 70 to 200 being the last lens of consideration for an APS-C Wedding kit – this lens takes a large % of the capital available . . . only buy it if you are going to use enough and in a manner equitable to that capital expenditure - I am not saying never buy a 70 to 200, just not buy one first up, when there are other more pressing needs.

WW

William Michael · June 30, 2009

Crikey that's long, I went quite mad on two espressos.

mark_loader · June 30, 2009

I was about to add my opinion when I saw Nadine's response and that was pretty much what I was going to say. I know of a terrific wedding pro here in Oz who uses that very combo with outstanding results. You may want to try a 70-200 f2.8 by Tamron or Sigma which will save you heaps over the Nikon equivalent. Oh, and go for the D90..,better in low light...good hunting. And someone keep the caffeine away from William (lol). Crikey indeed.

picturesque · June 30, 2009

I, for one, am going to copy William W.'s lens lecture into a file to keep for future reference. I've been shooting weddings for a long time, but I learned lots of things reading this extremely lucid explanation of lenses geared specifically for wedding photography. Thank you, William W. :^)

g._snow · June 30, 2009

Indeed, thanks William! Thanks for taking the time to write that book. I printed this thread and have my yellow highlighter and pencil ready to study and take notes. I hope you're on espresso the next time I post a question :)

g._snow · June 30, 2009

OK, here's a slightly different question. My main reason for foregoing the kit lens and just buying the D90 body was to get better glass. Maybe I was completely disillusioned. Like I said earlier, I experience ALOT of camera aberration when shooting outdoors and in backlight situations with my 18-55 f/3.5 lens that came with the D40 kit. I studied up on nikon lens technology and decided I needed a lens with ED glass elements, SIC, and VR (although VR was of lesser concern.) Then I discovered my current lens does have ED (1 glass element) and SIC.

Can anyone give me some insight into why I'm seeing so much abberation and if there are other lens features I should consider to get "good glass?" William, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to suggest that aberration was mostly a problem with at apertures wider than f/7 and smaller than f/11.

William Michael · June 30, 2009

"William, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to suggest that aberration was mostly a problem with at apertures wider than f/7 and smaller than f/11."

(I am drinking Peppermint Tea today . . .)

Firstly I do not use Nikon DSLR, but I have used both Canon 18 to 55 Kit zooms (i.e. the first one and then the IS version), My guess is there would be 5/8ths of 4/5ths of Zip, in the difference between those and the Nikon - but a dedicated Nikonardo will have better insight.

That stated: the Canon Kit lenses both display CA (Chromatic Aberration) and quite severely, when used wide open, it is worse at the edges but both get substantially better, at around F/7 and both work quite well to F/11 - after which diffraction is a bit of a pain.

I am not talking lab tests, I am talking what I see in a 10 x 8 print or on a monitor and not at 10000% magnification . . . just real world "can I sell this print in a 14 x 11 size and keep my credibility as a pro?" type of analysis.

BUT - you mention another two factors: "I experience A LOT of camera aberration when shooting outdoors and in backlight situations"

Answer: Flare and Veiling Flare - most likely the second more often.

Speaking generally, kit lenses are a real BIG compromise - a bit of light bouncing around inside can play hell with the image and the light baffle design and element arrangement, is not what Nikon nor would Canon spend a lot of money on, IMO.

Further, the front element sits pretty close to the rim, and it is almost impossible to get any reasonable lens hood.

An analysis of your problems will likely show more trouble when you are at 18mm to 35mm than when you are at 35mm to 55mm and most likely most of the trouble is when you are at F/8 or more open than when you are stopped down more than F/8.

Now that is only a reasonable guess . . . a deeper analysis would require an example and also I am interpreting your meaning of the term "camera aberration", because that is not a precise technical term (no offense meant).

That said, do not interpret my answer to suggest the kit lens is "suitable" as a main lens for Wedding Coverage - I do not believe it is.

I do believe the Canon kit lenses get an huge caning from those who have never taken the time to understand the limitations and adjust to use the lens effectively, or by persons who have never used these lenses at all and think it beneath a Photographer of any standing so to do.

My guess is the Nikon kit zoom gets similar treatment.

What I am saying is if one knows and respects the limitations of the kit zoom, good images can be made with it - but if one is using the kit lens a choice of tool for a paid gig, then one is behind the eight ball to begin, because of the limitations – so if it is spare then it would good to have a kit zoom in the bag a spare, or on a second body for Flash assisted table shots and the like, but it should not the main working zoom lens, IMO.

WW

g._snow · June 30, 2009

a deeper analysis would require an example and also I am interpreting your meaning of the term "camera aberration", because that is not a precise technical term (no offense meant).

No offense taken. The shot below was taken at 18mm and f/4.5, natural light only. This is an example at 100%, and is what I am referring to as aberration.

But how do I tell if I'm buying a decent lens as opposed to a "kit" lens? B&H has several D90 kits sold with a variety of lenses...in addition to different focal lengths, most of them all have different ED glass elements and other lens coatings or whatever, but are still considered kit lenses.<div></div>

William Michael · July 1, 2009

The blue rim looks like Chromatic Aberration to me.

This is image problem is NOT Flare, nor Veiling Flare.

Is the man near the left side, of the whole frame? CA, as I mentioned, tends to be worse at the edges.

The impact of CA might be lessened by not using a filter, by using a lens hood, and by not having highly reflective surfaces in direct light - on that last point note the other person's white shirt, not in direct light does not exhibit the same CA - nor does the man's ear, but CA is noticeable on his hair.

CA is sometimes referred to as "fringing".

Digitally, it can be corrected somewhat - I use Photoshop. In the RAW conversion there is "lens corrections". I note you have access to Photoshop also.

I am not really very fussed (or skilled compared to some here) about digital post production. I actually use the JPEG straight out of the box just sharpened a bit, for most of my work, except for Weddings.

If you ask this question in the digital darkroom, you likely will get in depth "fixes".

***

Well I was speaking about the 18 to 55 kit lens - basically I think that you get what you pay for - I think the (expensive) Nikon 17 to 50 F/2.8 (I think that's the FL range) would exhibit less CA . . . than the kit zoom equivalent. I am not versed with all the Nikon "kit lenses", but, for example, in that thread I linked to above (when I was drinking espressos) that fellow has an 18 to 1?? something "kit lens" I expect he would get some CA at the wide too, if he took the exact picture you uploaded as an example.

There are web sites which test lenses, the better tests always do CA.

***

But CA happens with all (wide) lenses to some degree - this is a 24L on a 5D: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9205171">http://www.photo.net/photo/9205171</a> (5D+24F1.4L: F10 @ 1/500s @ ISO800 HH)

I think you should be able see a little CA at the edges of the image where the intense light from outside hits the steel.

And even in low light you can get CA, when there is a brighter, but still low level light: note the red fringe on the ear (5D+24F/1.4L: F/3.2 @ 1/40s @ ISO800 HH) . . .

William Michael · July 1, 2009

here it is . . . <div>

</div>

William Michael · July 1, 2009

The thing is no lens is perfect - so I guess we all have to draw a line as to what is acceptable.

Digital photographers can sit and pixel peep all day and all night, which is a two edged sword.

Obviously we must strive for quality - but there is economy to consider too, and by that I mean economy of time as well as money . . . this area can become quite an hot spot for debate, actually, but suffice to say it seems a little silly to me to be pixel peeping images at 10000% for Bride who will have 5x7 prints in an album, one 10 x8 for the mantle shelf and the rest will be on a disc which she will send to friends via email or view on a TV screen - where both the Computer monitors and TV screen will have contrast & colour all out of whack anyway . . .

(now I duck for cover in case that comment is misinterpreted as me being both a sloppy Photographer and also judgemental and presupposing my client’s capacity to understand quality).

I am not that nor do I assume, either.

I am just making an extreme stance, to make the point that we all have to make a decision about the level of gear we use, and how we complete our work and that decision must take into account quality – and balance.

Your sample shows why I do not consider the kit lens suitable to be as the main working zoom for a Professional W&P Photographer - BUT it could be useful as a spare if it all its limitations are respected.

I trust that all helps you decide about your requirements.

WW

g._snow · July 1, 2009

Yes William, that does help. I thought there was such a thing as a perfect lens...thanks for clearing that up. And I can correct it most of the time in ACR. It's just time-consuming.

I think I've made a decision. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.

The Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is only $630, and has many lens elements that supposedly make camera aberrations rare. It also has VR (vibration reduction) which supposedly allows you to shoot at shutter speeds 4 times slower without motion blur than you would be able to therwise. So I'm thinking that even though my min aperture is 5.6 at the long end, the VR would compensate for slower shutter speeds and I could consider my min aperture to be f/4ish. Arghh...all this thinking has given me a headache.

The main reason I choose to make this my first lens purchase is because my first paid wedding gig is a beach wedding (at 4pm in Sept) and I'd rather have some extra zoom over a faster lens. My very next lens purchase will be the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, for low light situations. Can't wait to have that constant aperture.

William Michael · July 1, 2009

"The main reason I choose to make this my first lens purchase is because my first paid wedding gig is a beach wedding (at 4pm in Sept) and I'd rather have some extra zoom over a faster lens."

So you are sure, I confirm I read this part and I understand what you wrote.

***

To be sure you know what you are intending to buy, I have written this:

"It also has VR (vibration reduction) which supposedly allows you to shoot at shutter speeds 4 times slower without motion blur than you would be able to otherwise.”

Take care to understand precisely what this means. It refers to motion blur seen in the subject but caused by the camera moving.

Cameras move, often if they are held in the hand. There is a “rule of thumb” – which is very plasticine – but none the less about all we have.

It says that for the normal FL of lenses and a bit wide and a bit telephoto, then the shutter speed needed by most photographers to ensure reasonable camera “shake-free” sharpness is the reciprocal of the FL for 135 format camera. (it is a "Full Frame" rule of thumb)

i.e: the rule reckons that I can use an 85mm lens on a D700 and hand hold the camera at 1/80s and get little blur as a result of my hands shaking.

BUT on a D90 the 85 has a FoV of about a 128mm lens on a D700 . . . so an 85mm lens on a D90 I should be able to use 1/125s as my slowest shutter speed

So if we put VR into the equation, I then should be able to pull a shot at 1/8s (for example) when the lens is at FL = 85mm.

1/8s is about 4 stops faster than the rule of thumb says I can do.

So – all is well with the world, we expect that I can use this lens in low light, at a Wedding, from the back of the Church when the Bride an Groom are at the altar – we could the lens at F/5.6 (wide open) @ 1/8s @ ISO400 . . .

(Break - - - I am taking a walk)

Now I just live around the corner from a modern Roman Catholic Church – it is midday here and winter and sunny with few light clouds – the Church is airy and quite light . . . the ambient reading at the Altar is F5.6 @ 1/10s @ ISO400, so we are talking reality numbers.

OK . . . NO NOT OK: we NEED MUCH faster shutter speed because the Bride and Groom move – even when you think they are standing still – have a re-read of the thread in the link I put in that long thread above.

When a B&G are standing still you can expect you will need about 1/125s to consistantly get blur free images due to Subject Movement.

I can time the shot and pull 1/60s more than occasionally and about 1/30s only sometimes. I have gone as slow as 1/8s, but that was not a about it being a competition . . . it was it being about a dark old sandstone C of E Church, in winter and a No Flash Rule and I needed some DoF, so I had to shoot at F/2.8

***

So this zoom lens may or may not be OK for you - just be sure what it is you are be buying.

Understand that if you are at the back of a Church, and you want to use that zoom at 85mm, you have a max aperture of F/5.6.

If you were in the same Church as I, just a few minutes ago, and you had a D90, you could set ISO3200 and that would give you 1/80s @ F5.6 @ ISO3200 for a correct exposure of the scene at the Altar . . . but my guess is about 7 / 10 shots would be blurred, because that shutter speed is not fast enough to freeze adults when standing – especially when they are filled with the emotion of their Wedding Day.

For that shot, I would rather use my 85mmF/1.8 (no VR or IS) and pull:

F/2 @ 1/160s @ ISO800, have less noise and nail the Bride and Groom dead still.

Even using a 17 to 50F/2.8 zoom I would pull:

F2.8 @ 1/160s @ ISO1600 and crop the image later, to size, if necessary.

WW

g._snow · July 2, 2009

Point well taken. Thanks.

Sign In

Need New Lens for Wedding Photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in