Assorted Nikon lenses - which to use at which time at a wedding?

[mgk1966]

Hello again everybody. I have an assortment of lenses for my Nikon D80 as follows:

 

1) Nikon 17-55 f/2.8

2) Nikon 50mm f/1.8

3) Sigma 24mm f/1.4

4) Nikon 55-200 f/4-5.6G VR

5) Tokina 12-24 f4

 

In addition to an SB-800. As a prime for a wedding, which ones would you

suggest using for:

 

a) Getting ready

b) Processional/recessional

c) Ceremony

d) Altar formals

e) Outdoor formals

f) Reception

g) Dancing

 

I have a D40 I use as a backup. I could slap a lens on that and carry both

cameras around, but I've been told not to use the D40 at all at a wedding.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[jc5066]

With what you have, the 17-55 wouldn't be removed.

 

The only exception would be the 50mm durring the ceremony to get the extra light.

[picturesque]

It would be completely dependent upon what I was trying to accomplish and the circumstances, which change constantly. Do you do everything anyone tells you to?

[conraderb]

matthew - I hope that you aren't shooting professionally, right? if you are, then the fact that you have to answer this question means you aren't ready to shoot professionally, I'm sorry.

 

but if you are shooting more casually, it's clear that your 17-55 is your main lens, with the 1.8 and 1.4 for low light and good DOF effects, the 12-24 for tight spaces, your 55-200 for the ceremony (with a tripod if it is dark).

 

if you are thinking about doing this seriously, you might want to get a 2.8 long zoom to complement your 17-55 2.8.

[mgk1966]

All right dudes, I'm not getting into this discussion again. I was just looking for some thoughts. I'm doing low budgets for informed clients who have been satisfied with the quality of work for the price spent.

[mgk1966]

...and I was starting a general discussion that I thought newbies could search for in the future....

[ncowger]

Matthew, I visited your site and I think for your prices your photos are an excellent

value. In hind site, I would gladly hire you over who shot my wedding. Some of the

more experienced people on this site tend to forget that we all start somewhere.

[mgk1966]

Thanks. Getting back to the question at hand....I typically use the 17-55 f/2.8 for 90% of the shots. If I'm outdoors, I'll use the 55-200 for formals, but I don't think it's fast enough for indoors, even with VR. I use the 50mm occasionally for close-ups and formals, but have had only bad luck with moving targets. I've never used the wide for a wedding, but am interested in figuring out how to use it.

[russ_konrad]

Why do you use the 55-200 or the 50mm for formals?

 

For almost any formal group shots - you would need to get very far back using those lenses.

 

IMHO - you have an excellent lens in the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Use it for your formal portraits indoors and out. Optically it is a much better lens than the slower consumer 55-200 lens.

 

For a professional wedding photography business - you should ultimately get rid of any lens slower than f/2.8. Investment in high quality glass is always a good move and will pay for itself with much higher quality images.

[mgk1966]

Yes, the tele would be no good for a group shot. I should have said that I haven't actually used the 55-200 for a wedding, but I've done informal portraits on it and been able to get decent shots of a single or double subject. The one time I did an outdoor event, I rented a 70-200 f/2.8. My impression was that the wider aperture wasn't necessary outside.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[russ_konrad]

A wider aperture might not be necessary outside but the higher quality glass will give you much better images outdoors and allow you to shoot indoors without a flash as well.

[picturesque]

Since you kind of answered your own question, I would ask why you are asking? If this is an exercise meant for newer photographers to learn from, perhaps you should reformulate the question. Each lens will have it's advantages and disadvantages for various circumstances, with some lenses being more appropriate for an overall, 'most of the time' choice than others. Angle of view is an obvious big reason for choosing a lens. Rather than 'assigning' a lens to various parts of the day, why not list the advantages/disadvantages of the lens and fit that to certain circumstances. For instance, the 55-200 f4-5.6 VR would not see much use from me except for outdoor ceremonies, particularly ones where the physical setting of the ceremony is spacious. The reason, of course, is you don't need wide apertures purely for exposure reasons outside, normally. Also, if I really needed a zoom for indoor, low light, no flash ceremonies (for some reason, like being physically blocked from walking), I might use it with a tripod for the quiet moments of the ceremony.

 

I love my 50mm f1.4. Particularly for indoor, low light ceremonies. It also makes a great portrait lens on a crop sensor camera. There is no reason you should have motion problems with it, unless you are using too slow a shutter to handhold on a crop sensor camera. Following the guideline, that should be 1/80th. Dragging the shutter blur is something else again. The Sigma 24mm f1.4 should be good for wide, low light, no flash ceremony shots or getting ready shots. The Tokina wide zoom would be for whenever you wanted the super wide.

 

The 17-55mm f2.8 is an obvious 'most of the time' lens. Good range for most anything you need at a wedding, most of the time, and as fast as a mid range zoom gets. Not to mention the quality.

 

If I had a capable 2nd body, I would use it when I needed to. What is wrong with the D40?

[mgk1966]

Thanks. The D40 has noise problems as you jack up the ISO, but that would probably be mitigated when using the 1.4. I guess I was influenced by another poster who was outraged at the thought of using it at a wedding.

 

My "answer" was the setup that I typically use. Responses on my other posts made me think I should consider readjusting what I use during the ceremony.

 

I'm getting good advice on these boards and around town, but the fact that experienced, talented professionals have conflicting opinions makes it a little confusing. Some say stand close with a wide, some say stand far with a tele. Some say open the aperture for more ambient and less DOF, while others say close the aperture for the opposite.

[picturesque]

Your engineer's mind may be needing too much comparmentalization... :^) Why would we (pros and any photographer) all photograph a wedding the same way with the same gear? Before you accept a suggestion as good, analyze it for making sense and fit it into the way you work. If you don't have good reasons for the way you currently work, find them. They should stem from the kind of images YOU want to make.

[picturesque]

Also, re the D40--I understand most Nikon cameras, up until the D300 and D3, don't do as well with high ISO. However, that shouldn't stop you from using it when you can and in ways that don't emphasize the negative.

[mgk1966]

Yeah, I had a way of doing things, but that all got changed when I realized I didn't have the basics down. It's a little backwards since I've been shooting for a long time but was never formally taught. So now I'm trying to go back and learn traditional commercial photography so I can hit all the important shots. Then I'll go back to playing around.

[james hoang]

If I had your lenses, I think this is how I would make use of them and I would use 2 bodies (one SB800 can be used on whichever bodies needs it) :<P>

 

a) Getting ready - 17-55mm, 24mm <BR>

b) Processional/recessional - same as (a) with maybe 55-200mm if I absolutely need it.<BR>

c) Ceremony - same as (b)<BR>

d) Altar formals - 17-55mm<BR>

e) Outdoor formals - same as (d)<BR>

f) Reception - same as (a) - shutter drag<BR>

g) Dancing - same as (a) - shutter drag<P>

 

Anything else is unnecessary weight and one needs to move fast. <P>

 

PS. I use the Sigma 30mm because I dont have the 24mm. I have 2 D200's which I try very hard not to push above ISO800 due to noise (use more flash).<P>

 

Good luck.

[t_n1]

I only use two lenses on two bodies for weddings. When I used two crop cameras, I'd have the 17-55mm and the 50mm 1.4 on each. When I migrated to full frame cameras, 24-105mm and 85mm on each. I used to carry every lens I owned to weddings, but I always end up using only those two lenses mentioned above. I'd always bring along a 70-200 (full frame) just in case, but I hardly touched it.

[wedding-photography-denver]

In general, TN hits what I would suggest.

 

I would carry that D40, at all times during the wedding. If and when your D80 gets sick, the D40 will be your insurance.

 

Best, d.

[davidmoore]

For events, I get by with a 24-70 f2.8 and 135 f2 on a full frame Canon 5D 90% of the time. My other lenses stay in the bag until needed.

 

On your D80 my 24-70 would roughly translate to your 17-55 lens. This one should get most of your work done. For a second lens, it's hard to beat the combination of medium telephoto and wide aperture--a 85mm prime would be a light and fast equivalent to my 135. I'd look into trading the 55-200 for one, then rent a 70-200 f2.8VR, when you need more reach or flexibility.

 

Put the 17-55mm and flash on your D40, put the 85mm on your D80 and you're good to go. Two lenses, two cameras, light weight, less lens changing, more time to think about images, and much less gear to carry around.

 

You can dig deeper into your lens collection as required for special needs. The 24 f1.4 and the 50 f1.8 will be good for available light shots. When you need a very wide shot, the Tokina 12-24 will work, provided the light is sufficient. But I predict these three lenses will spend more time in the bag than on the camera at most weddings.

 

Short version: Keep it light, fast, and simple, and lose the 55-200 (too heavy and too slow). Learning to visualize and anticipate your next shot is much easier when you're intimately familiar with one or two workhorse lenses.

[james hoang]

TN wrote: "I used to carry every lens I owned to weddings, but I always end up using only those two lenses mentioned above"

 

This is very true.

 

I think many wedding photogs started out this way until we become experienced enough to know that "the best lens is always the lens on your camera" (somebody holds the rights to that phrase) and that the older you get the heavier the lenses becomes. :-)

[nikki_banik]

Matt

 

I just recently purchased a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which I plan to use most of the time during weddings. I will most likely use the Nikon 50mm 1.8 in low light settings, close ups, and formals. I will test this out on Saturday at a very small, low key wedding that I am doing.

 

I am in a similar situation as you are, doing weddings for the budget bride who understands my qualifications and abilities and that I am still learning. My prices are similar to yours, only my husband is a second shooter, so they are a little higher and I do include engagement and bridal sessions with some of my packages. You can see my website www.thesweetestmemory.com. This year is exciting for me and I will be updating my galleries with new weddings (cant wait).

 

Anyway, thanks for posting this question. I enjoyed reading it and I feel more confident in the purchases I made this week.

 

Nikki

[eric_arnold]

hmm, well, the obvious problem here is that your backup cam wont AF with the two primes you have. ideally, you'd want at least another d80 as backup, along with a 70-200 VR, so that you could cover almost any situation with two lenses while maintaining the same camera settings.

 

but looking at what you're working with, the 17-55 is obviously going to be the workhorse. the 55-200 is the only lens you currently have other than the 17-55 which will AF on a D40, so i'd bring that by default. you could do a really wide group shot or a landscape-esque pic with the 12-24 if you're so inclined, but i dont think you want to be changing lenses frequently if you can help it. you might find the 50 a little long for anything except head shots, while the 24 would work for no-flash indoor shots when the 2.8 of the 17-55 isnt enough, but then you're switching lenses again unless you want to MF on your d40.

 

also, if you insist on using the d40, i've seen some really cool wedding results taken with a sigma 30/1.4, which will AF on a D40. another option is the sigma 50-150, which has HSM and is a 2.8. it costs almost $900 less than the 70-200 VR too.

 

bottom line is, if you really want to do weddings professionally, at some point, you're going to have to spend some coin to get the right equipment. that's just the cost of doing business. until then, you're just going to have to work with what you've got now. good luck!

[hughw]

Matt

I visited your site and love your,work . Have you thought of using an 18- 200 lens. I recently shot a wedding for a family member exclusively with the 18 - 200 lens. It was prefect. Covered every possible situation (group shots, full body, close ups). One lens

[mgk1966]

Thanks all, and congrats to all on making the day's top posts! Anyway, I just double checked and the Sigma is a 30mm. It works fine with the D40. I didn't want to throw the 17-55 on the D40 because it seemed out of character. Instead, I'll try the 17-55 on the D80 and the Sigma 1.4 30 on the D40, with occasional changes. I'll check out the Tamron that was suggested.

 

Nikki, I'll check out your site and get back to you. If you can stand a little heat from the pro's, you'll get some good critiques from this board.