Jump to content

Lenses


dan_mays1

Recommended Posts

<p>I currently have a Nikon D7000 with a 50 mm prime lens. I wanted to buy a couple of zoom lenses. I know I am getting the Tamron 17-50mm vc lens. However, i am having trouble with what to get for the up to 200 mm zoom. I know that a fixed apurture is best. However, those are very expensive. I am also having trouble finding that level of a zoom with VR. Maybe if doing portraits on a tripod, the vibration reduction may not be as important. However, if shooting a wedding, the VR seems important. These first two lenses will eventually be my backup lenses after I get enough $$ saved up to buy the more expensive lenses. And just in case the question comes up. No I am not going out to shoot weddings w/no experience. I am going to assist a wedding photographer or two (or five) and want to have some descent equipment. <br>

Thanks,<br>

Dan.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am also having trouble finding <strong>that level of a zoom with VR.</strong> Maybe if doing portraits on a tripod, the vibration reduction may not be as important. <strong>However, if shooting a wedding, the VR seems important.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am NOT debating the uses and the values of VR but rather asking, why specifically is VR important to you for Wedding work?<br>

When shooting Weddings, the first movements to consider will be those of the Subjects and to arrest those we need a fast enough Tv and or to use Flash.<br>

In the cases of low light work without using Flash, for example during the Church Service, then Subject Movement still is a major consideration and so in this shooting scenario we usually require about as fast as Tv = 1/60s, even when the B&G are standing still . . . but yes pulling shots at 1/15s is necessary sometimes - but to be avoided if possible: but in these cases of needing a really slow Tv - use a tripod or monopod - and during the Service that is usually not a problem.<br>

Yes: IF someone needs or thinks they need a 70 to 200/2.8 . . . then I suggest getting the lens <em><strong>with VR (or IS) </strong></em>unless there are special reasons not to - but my opinion to buy the lens with VR, is not because the VR is so necessary for Wedding work.<br>

As you appear on a budget, that is why I am asking why is VR so necessary for you, for Weddings? </p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>However, if shooting a wedding, the VR seems important.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since the D3/D700 came out, I've actually never found VR to be that important for weddings, in general. The only time I have benefited from VR is when shooting very dark churches. In those limited circumstances, the VR in the 70-200 v.II has proven invaluable. Otherwise, the high ISO abilities of the D3s, D700, and D7000 make VR a non-essential feature, IMHO.</p>

<p>The Nikon 17-55 AF-S f/2.8 is still a great lens, and paired with the 70-200 VR II it's all you really need. I shoot primes, and use the 17-55 along with a 35 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.4, and that trio (on a DX body), covers 95% of what I need. On FX bodies, I use 24/35/50/85 with the 35 and 85 getting most of the action.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have read some reviews that actually place the Tamron 17-50 VC a half-step below its non VC stablemate and increasingly more that rate Sigma's new 17-50 OS lens on a par with the OEM 17-55 lenses (optically) yet for a much lower price tag. I would certainly consider the Sigma vs Tamron.</p>

<p>If I were you I would start off with that focal length range before splashing out on long lenses just so you can have every mm covered from 10-200mm for example. Start with that one lens and as you gain experience, decide based on your developing style, which focal length to go for next. When I started shooting weddings, I though that the logical next purchase to complement my 28-105 lens was a 70-300. After several weddings, i realised that what i needed was a fast prime...and after shooting some more, a wide angle. I never did get round to buying that 70-200/300 lens. Not sure I ever will.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a Tamron 28-75 2.8 (non-BIM) for 90-95% of my wedding work starting with a D80 and now a D7000. Skin tones and colors are right on with that lens and most of my weddings are on the beach. I have thought of going with the 17-50 Tammy, but after reviewing the focal length found that most of my shots with in the 30-50mm range.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><br />1) I love my new Sigma 17-50.<br />I can shoot 90% of the wedding with that lens. I think you should get<br />experience shooting … if you are working with another photographer than he can<br />cover long shots. ( I use a D300)<br>

<br />2) Wedding photography is in the eye of the photographer. I find beginners use long lenses to hide away in the background rather than getting in taking photos.<br>

3) Telephotos flatten prospective that makes a wedding look like a sporting event.<br>

4) I would worry more about flash and flash technique than long lenses.<br>

<br />Get in and start taking photos. Don’t worry about loading up<br />with equipment from the start.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...