Nikon lenses best for digital wedding photography

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by sunnydaze, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. I have an engagment session and a wedding to shoot and am short on lenses and
    equipment. I use a D70 at the moment, but I am desperate need of a good all
    round lense that I can use outdoors and indoors and all the rigors that
    wedding photography will throw at me. I have narrowed it down to three lenses
    to chose from:

    Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens
    Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens
    Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

    Which do you recommend, and if none of the three above, which one can you
    suggest that will be a great all rounder for me. They are expensive and I can
    unfortunately only afford just the one at this time....
    I just cant decide and also do not have the experience to make a good decision
    here on my own - help please!
     
  2. I won't get into it too much but after reading your last line do you really want to put someones most important day in your hands?

    I would get the 17-55DX as an all arounder it covers large groups and can get tight-superb all around lens better than your other choices. The 70-200VR would be my next choice or even the 80-200 2.8 with a monopod is about half the price or less used.
     
  3. 17-55/2.8 For me every other lens is for something special.
     
  4. I think most Nikon digital weddings togs would consider the 17-55 and the 70-200VR the two most important lenses. Secondarily, I'd consider 50 1.8 or 1.4. The 85 1.4 is a great lens and the 10.5 DX is for fun. Also the Sigma 30 1.4
     
  5. As mentioned, the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens is THE event-shooter's DSLR lens, giving you a 35mm-format-equivalent range of 25.5-82.5mm.
     
  6. Thank you all for your valuable contributions - it is nice to know where to get some safe and friendly advice. It is sometimes tough to make these choices when you are first starting out and money is limited. I appreciate it.
     
  7. I use the 17-55 Dx 2.8, and the 70-200 2.8 VR. I love the combo!
     
  8. BTW, if you can't handle the $1200 for the 17-55/2.8 Nikon, or you really need to put some money into ther gear (like a backup body or flash), the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a good alternative.
     
  9. take some kind of backup body too. what lens do you have now?
     
  10. If money weren't an issue I would go with the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8....

    If money is an issue, as it is mine, you could consider 3rd party lenses.... I'm quite a fan of Sigma myself. For events, my Sigma 20-40 f/2.8 EX DG, and my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM see a lot of use.....
     
  11. 17-55 is the best of the zooms.

    The 28-70 was incredible! However, too long on a cropped body. Terribly difficult to shoot groups with that lens.

    17-35, only played with it a couple of times, but it lacked the telephoto qualities of the 17-55.

    17-55 is hands down the best of the three short zooms.

    Longer glass, I always opted for the speed of f/1.4 or f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 is in a class by itself. The 135mm f/2 is great.

    Can't speak for the 70-200 but used the 80-200 a couple of times and it is cheaper and just about can't be beat for the price.
     
  12. I have always had good luck with the 24-120 vr. It's a good all around lens and it has a descent focal range for just about everything. I keep a few extras with me in a fanny pack, but rarely use them.
     
  13. Im a combat photographer for the united states army with seven years experience. I know wedding photography is a far cry from combat but gotta do something when I get out. Anyway, can't really afford a 17-55 lens at this point. What would be a good substitute? Thanks, brad.
     
  14. "(I) can't really afford a 17-55 lens at this point. What would be a good substitute?"


    I sold an editorial photographer friend of mine the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]. He's been pleased with the build quality and optics of the lens, which retails for $439 after rebate (compared to $1,200 for the Nikon 17-55mm DX):


    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=12041&A=details&Q=&sku=423716&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation


    Here's a review of the Tamron lens by p.net's own Bob Atkins:


    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html
     
  15. What do you think about renting lenses as a tryout before spending the money if you are not sure which lens is right?

    Kim
     
  16. Is there a huge difference between the 17-55mm and the 18-55mm? The price range is huge!
     
  17. "Is there a huge difference between the 17-55mm and the 18-55mm? The price range is huge!"
    Let's say "substantial" rather than "huge:"
    1. The build quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX Nikkor is substantially better than that of an 18-55mm kit lens.
    2. The 18-55mm has an aperture that floats from f/3.5 to f/5.6. There are times at a wedding when you need to be able to shoot wide open at a reasonably fast aperture and get good sharpness in the corners of your images, as well as low vignetting in the corners. The 17-55mm f/2.8 allows you to do that.
    3. The overall image quality produced by the 17-55mm will be noticeably better than images shot with the 18-55mm kit lens. Certainly, the 17-55mm retails for about 14X more than the 18-55mm kit lens. Images taken with the 17-55mm will not be 14X better than images taken with the 18-55mm.
    That said, as I've observed before, whether you're buying cars or clothes or stereo equipment or guns or camera equipment, as the price increases geometrically, quality will only increase arithmatically. If you want the best of anything, you'll pay a premium.
     

Share This Page