I would like some advice, please - Lens question 17-35 2.8 Nikon for weddings?

[patty_h.]

Hello!

I have a big question, does anybody use the Nikon 17-35mm f/ 2.8 to shoot weddings? I looked around for previous

posts and I found that a lot of people have used it for landscapes. Actually my first choice was to get the Nikon 17-

55mm f/2.8 well, I was going to rent it but is not available now. So would you guys recommend the 17-35mm to

shoot weddings? If so would this 17-35 along with a nikon 50mm 1/4 be ok to shoot an entire wedding? Thanks.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

My advice would be to avoid shooting any weddings until you get the training and experience to answer a question like this. From your last post on bouncing the flash, you suggested that you could solve your dark photos by getting a better lens.....I suspect that the problem is with your technique and not the lens.

 

The lens you mention above could cover many wedding situations but would not be acceptable for most portraits and for close-ups. You'll also need backup lenses and bodies.

[sam_ellis]

I use the 17-55 almost the entire wedding while my assistant uses the 70-200 and 35-70 to get the closeups. I think 35mm is too short to use for an entire wedding and 50mm is a good lens, but will also be limiting, I tried using my 50 at a wedding reception, but it was either too long or not wide enough on a DX body.

[steve_c.5]

Patty, David has a good point. While that's a nice lens, and even with a 50mm, you still could not competently shoot

an entire wedding with just those two lenses. And many have tried, I'm sure.

 

Also, the camera you're using will have an effect on the range of the lens. For instance, if you're using a Nikon body

with an APS-C size sensor, it produces a magnification effect with any lens you use. For instance, that 50mm lens

will act more like a 70mm. Likewise, the 17-35mm will look more "zoomed" because of this magnification factor.

 

If you're using a camera body with a full frame sensor (like the D700 or D3), or a 35mm film camera, the 50mm will

be a "normal" zero magnification lens, and the 17-35 will appear to be very wide angle.

 

In either case, you really need a range of lenses to adequately shoot weddings. Everything from very wide angle to

200 or 300mm. I mostly work in the 10mm to 70mm range, but for large churches, I break out the 70-200mm f2.8

lens to shoot from the back of the church.

 

If I were you, I'd first look at lenses in the 17-70 range, and nothing slower than f2.8. Sigma makes some very good

lenses that are affordably priced. And, if you can afford the Nikon glass, then go for it. I think even with Nikon, I'd go

for a lens with more range than the one you mention.

 

I hope that helps you.

[picturesque]

I disagree--one 'can' photograph an entire wedding with the 17-35mm and 50mm. It gives you a range (full frame) of about 26-53mm and 75mm. I haven't ever used the lens because I use Canon so I can't say how good it is.

[steve_c.5]

Nadine, the operative word in my statement was "competently", so maybe I should qualify that a bit. I'll agree that one 'can' shoot an entire wedding with that pair of lenses, as long as they have full access to get where they need to be to get particular shots. Many times, we don't have full freedom of movement. And, the 50mm may or may not be long enough in a large venue where we're stuck at the back. My point was that to cover all the circumstances we encounter in weddings, you'd really need a better range of lenses than those two, which I'm sure you'd agree with.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Just because "you can" it doesn't mean "you should". One "can" shoot an entire wedding with a fish-eye lens, if

that's what they wanted to do. Either of those lenses will not do a good job with headshots or when you're stuck in

the back of the church.

 

One "can" ahoot an entire wedding without any backup gear as well.....it's not a good idea and sooner or later it will

create some significant problems......sometimes, sooner rather than later.

[sprouty]

<I>"...shoot an entire wedding with a fish-eye lens..."</I>

<P>

Now <I>that</I> would be one crazy wedding album.

[cariad]

I shoot most of my weddings with a 24-70 f 2.8 on a full frame camera and I have covered an entire wedding with that set up, but if I can't get close enough during the ceremony I switch over to my 70-200 f 2.8 IS on either the 40D or 30D and use both cameras on and off. A 50 mm is great for portraits, but I don't think I would like to shoot a wedding with it, I like the zoom action. I also use 17-55 2.8 IS sometimes but I still prefer the 24-70. I agree with David...........Backup gear is so very important and lots of batteries and memory cards, don't cut yourself short on any of that. Another thing I think it is very important have at least 2 flashes, I actually take 3 or 4 with me just in case because they do break at times or even overheat if you get carried away :)

[picturesque]

I still say one 'can' shoot an entire wedding competently with those lenses. Saying that one 'can' shoot an entire wedding with a fisheye or P&S or without backup gear (or whatever) is stretching an exaggeration even more. I used to shoot entire weddings with medium format gear with what would translate in 35mm gear to a 28mm, 50mm and 80mm. The coverage was competent. Even the ceremony shots from the back of the church. There is such a thing as cropping.

 

Of course it is nice to have just the range of focal lengths, fast apertures and lens quality you want and that fits your style. No argument there. And most pros have such a line up of lenses. I believe the question was whether "this 17-35 along with a nikon 50mm 1/4 be ok to shoot an entire wedding?" My answer is, "yes, they are OK." The question didn't ask if they were the perfect lenses for weddings...

[niccoury]

things people "should" do, is a very subjective statement. different ways of producing images are what gives us all different styles. it's like if everyone used the same actions, we'd all have the same shots, which is pointless.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Well, I could shoot an entire wedding on one 35mm. So my answer is yes, you can shoot the whole thing on those two.

 

I currently use a range of glass, but don't 'need' it. I just like to play and am always seeking to bend things a bit. So, for my glass use its:

 

D300's get one of the following: 11-16 Tokina, 10-24 Tamron (just started playing with this one) for the super wides/funky shots. 16-50 Tokina for most of the day (2 of us use this same lens all day). Before the ceremony and during I use either the Tokina 50-135 or the Nikon 70-200Vr depending on reach needed. I have a 300 in case but never use it.

 

D700's get one of the following: 85/1.4 or Sigma 50/1.4

 

5D gets the 24/1.4

 

Not stuck on(or married to, since this is the wedding forum) any of this, but that is what I do for now.

 

 

If the opportunity presents itself, here is what I want:

 

Ideal body for me (cameras anyhow) Nikon D400, 12mp, clean iso6400+, 5+fps and still with the 1.5 crop.

 

Ideal lens set up: 12 - 18/f2; 35 - 85/f2, 70-200/f2.8Vr (oh wait I have that one) X2 on all. Add the lensbaby composer and we're set.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Of couse, one 'can' shoot an entire wedding with those lenses, if they are willing to sacrafice getting any closeups from the back of the church and getting good portraiture. A 50mm lens is not considered a portrait lens even on a crop camera.

 

Just for fun, let's suggest to some established wedding shooters that they leave home without their 85mm and ther 70-200 lenses.

[sprouty]

<I>"A 50mm lens is not considered a portrait lens even on a crop camera."</I>

<P>

David, that's an interesting comment, as often you will hear people suggest an 85mm (roughly equivalent to 50mm

on a crop camera) as the "ideal" focal length for portraits.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

http://www.wildheart.com.au/public_panel/learn_photography_now_page_files/portrait_photography/page3_lenses_portrature.php

[steve_hovland]

You need a shorter lens like 24mm for groups and longer lenses for individuals and candids.

 

The $100 50mm's by both Canon and Nikon are very good starting points for a longer lens. These are f1.8 lenses and f1.4's cost about 3 times as much.

 

50mm's are great because of wide apertures and forces you to stand back for good perspective and also staying out of people's personal space- they don't really see you at 10 ft or so.

 

My next camera will be a Canon body and I'm thinking about the 24mm f2.8 for groups and 28-135mm for everything else.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"The 70-200mm focal length is an important range for ceremony images. Very few wedding parties want the photographer in the way during the ceremony. Most likely, you will be photographing down the aisle from the back of the church. This is where an image-stabilized telephoto zoom shines. 200mm is long enough to be able to take 3/4 length images of the bride and groom without creeping too far forward down the aisle and 70mm is wide enough to take in the bridesmaids or groomsmen as a group without switching lenses" - Josh Root http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment

 

I agree.

[picturesque]

I don't even own a 70-200mm and I have photographed many a wedding with nothing longer than about 80mm. Not every wedding has you, the photographer, stuck at the back of the church. I do have 135mm and 200mm focal lengths available to me and I use them sometimes.

 

I don't deny that the longer lengths are nice to have when you need them. I don't, however, think that they are absolutely necessary for competent coverage. This is also a matter of opinion. David--you agree with Josh--I don't, not entirely. I would not be so very unhappy if I was told I couldn't take my teles with me.

 

In lieu of the longer focal lengths, one can crop and/or restage. Obviously not ideal, but certainly possible with good results if one doesn't have the longer lengths available, and until one can purchase them.

 

And a 50mm lens is about 75/80mm on a crop camera, which I also was taught was good for portraits.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Sorry David,

 

I would normally agree with your findings. In this case I just prefer the 85mm (ish) FL for portraits. I also like to use a 50mm on a crop body. I rarely use a 135 for this and its not for want of trying.

 

I would even use a 35 on a crop body for portraits on occasion, but then I like a little more wiggle room to include the environment in a lot of my work.

 

As Nadine says, this is a matter for each to decide. I do acknowledge the benefits of a short-med tele for portraiture, just not as a matter of course.