Which lens to buy?

<p>I am shooting my first wedding (outside venue for a friend in August and would like some recommendations for one or maybe two new lenses. My current camera is a Nikon D90 with a Nikon DX - AF-S 18-105mm f:3.5-5.6G ED, a Nikon - AF-S 70-300mm f:4.5-5.6G ED and a SB-600. I believe I should be looking for a wide angle and maybe a macro. I am a beginner and would like to get the best bang for the $1500 I have to spend. Thanks in advance for your help.</p>

<p>If you're going to continue to do weddings (most are not outside), you'll need one that goes below 3.5. Maybe a 2.8, 28-70?</p>

<p>I would replace both lenses with f/2.8 zooms. Since $1500 won't cover the cost for new Nikkor G AF-S zooms (the 24-70 is $1700 and the 70-200 VR II is $2300. You would need $4k to budget them both), you should look at older, used, or third-party options. Even used, one of these older versions will offer significant improvement over your current lenses.</p>

<p>You can easily find a 80-200mm f/2.8D in excellent condition for $800 or less. You might also look at the Tamron 70-200 or the Sigma 50-150, both in the $700 range.</p>

<p>Tamron's new 17-50mm f/2.8 VC is about $600. You could also look at their older 17-50 without VC for around $350. You could also consider a used Nikon 17-55 for under $1000. Even a used 28-70 might be found for around $1000. Unless you have a wide angle, too, most shooters who use the D90 prefer something in the 17-55 range, rather than 28-70.</p>

<p>You might want to review the beginner threads and check: <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</a></p>

<p>I suggest that you sell the two lenses that you have and put that $ towards getting the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 2.8. You can get them both used from a reputable dealer like Keh.com or Adorama.com for less than $2k - (I bought my 17-55 from KEH in EXCELLENT condition for $950, and the 80-200 can be had for $700-$800 all day.) The lenses that you have now will not be of much use in wedding situations because they are not nearly fast enough for most situations. Even if the venue is outside, there will be times when you will need a faster lens. (Examples: Portraits in a dimly lit setting outside, at the reception if the sun has started to go down, etc.) It's true enough that you can use your flash for many of these situations, but using the flash too much takes away the "romantic" feel that is desired from many wedding images. You can survive with your current set up, but it's really holding you back. Also, I would look into renting a back up camera body if you don't have a back up. Just my 2¢, good luck, and welcome to the world of Wedding Photography!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suggest that you sell the two lenses that you have and put that $ towards getting the Nikon 17-55 2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 for that suggestion if you intend to shoot more than just one wedding. If you don't then I suggest not buying anything at all, and perhaps just renting the 17-55.</p>

<p>Or you could consider a 20 2.8 and a 50 1.4 - both would be excellent with a crop sensor and offer more versatility in low light while being somewhat cheaper.</p>

<p>How about: Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC, plus Nikkor 85/1.8, plus a backup body and flash. </p>

<p>For an outdoor wedding, you probably don't need other lenses/zooms. If you intend to make it 'more than one wedding', the above suggestions are good. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 being the most sensible, plus maybe the 85mm f1.8. Don't <strong>need</strong> a macro. Nice to have but not necessary. Even a cheap close up filter will do. Same with a super wide, although that would be higher priority than a macro.</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is affordable and quite good.</p>

<p>Has anyone ever used the 105mm Micro AF-S VR Nikkor for weddings? I have heard great things about that lens for both far focusing and macro work and was wondering if it would be a good versatile lens for weddings. If it is it fits nicely into the OP's budget and does macro.</p>

<p>The only drawback to it is that it is a prime so if you want variety it might necessitate lens switching which in the heat of the moment can be bad. On the other hand would it be ok if you have two cameras to have a 50mm f1.4 on one camera and the 105mm on the other camera (assuming both cameras are crop sensor)?</p>

<p>I think the one beef with the 105 Micro is that it is only f/2.8, which doesn't amount to very fast for a prime lens. The 105mm f/2 DC gives 1 stop more light and dead-perfect isolation depth of field. For *about* the same money, there's also the 85mm f/1.4, which gives yet another full stop more light and DOF.</p>

<p>Yeah I agree with you on that point Hal. f2.8 isn't very fast for a prime lens, the main reason why I thought that would still be ok is that all the pro zoom lenses being suggested are all f2.8 as well so I didn't think that was really a negative attribute as much as a push, if you are comparing the 105 to the zooms.</p>

<p>Thank you all to explain me about the lens I am seeing to buy.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nexteve.com"><strong>Dress for Prom</strong></a></p>

As I haven't seen anyone mention it directly on the thread, it is also very important to think about backup equipment when shooting a wedding. I would strongly advise that you get a second body at least. Maybe rent a second D90 which you're already using and are thus familiar with.

<p>I'd say you dont need a wide angle...the 18mm should be good enough for wide side for a beginning photographer.</p>

<p>What u dont have is a fast lens....that you'd probably want to shoot a portrait or in low light and blur the background. Get an 85mm 1.8 lens and a backup body. Dont use that 70-300mm for weddings....unless u want to shoot outside on a bright day. <br>

Someday you'd probably want a 70-200mm 2.8......Nikons may be too expensive...have a look at new Sigmas...they are fabulous as well.<br>

and you may want to get a more powerful flash as well. </p>

<p>cheers!</p>