What lenses + equip are good, is it ok for a 300mm f2.8

[robert_camillo]

<p><strong>I have a wedding shoot coming up in January 2010. In my bag I have atm</strong><br>

D300<br>

Nikon AFS 12-24mm f4 DX IF-ED<br>

Sigma AF 24-70mm f2.8 EX Macro (Yes I know the Macro on this lens is Rubbish)<br>

AF 300mm F2.8 APO DG Sigma EOS (I paid 3k for this lens for sport, and is a nice lens) I have no problem setting this up on a monopod)<br>

SB 900<br>

40" umbrella reversable<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>What I Am gettting</strong></p>

<p>D200 body (after selling my pentax)<br>

obviously backup batteries and flash cards.</p>

<p>I would borrow a 3rd camera as a complete backup camera, I think its a D90.</p>

<p>The idea is to shoot indoor shots with the two smaller lenses, and for outdoor shots change lenses for telephoto shots, hoping this gives me time to let the group do what they want then capture it.</p>

<p>I am thinking I would like to maybe get a 50 f1.4 or the 85mm but has to be the best macro too, I'm so dissappointed with the macro on my Sigma.</p>

<p>I know the obvious lens would be the 70-200mm but I don't exactly have the cash for that, as I went out and got a sports lens last year.</p>

<p>Any ideas? I have a bit of money but maybe only $1000 AU to sort my stuff out. There is no way I'm buying Tamron or plastico stuff.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Start by reading this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</a></p>

<p> </p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>The 50 1.4 is a fantastic lens. Myself... I'd sell the 300 and swap it for the 70-200 2.8 VR. Simply because it's lighter and you can MOVE. Weddings aren't something that you can just sit back on a tripod to get the shots. You need to move around and get the right angle and composition so having the smallest weight possible on you is an advantage. We usually leave lenses in our trunk until we need them. We'll take our 35L and our 50 1.4 for preps, then the 35L and the 70-200 for ceremony and then go back to the previous lenses during the reception. Makes it easier to get up and go when the time is right. We really don't use flash that much so can't help you there. We prefer natural light and I've always found umbrella's to be way to tacky at a wedding. We might hide a flash in a corner for some fill light or snoot one from across the room but that's about it.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>.. is it OK for a 300mm f2.8?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On a D300, your 300 lens is around 450mm equivalent. The only way I could use it at a wedding on your camera is if I were photographing from the car park :-)</p>

[ed farmer - mount laurel,]

<p>I would love to take my 300f2.8 to weddings, but I just don't have the time to set it up often enough. However, I wouldn't leave home without my 80-200f2.8! Keep in mind that you don't need the AF-S or VR versions in order to shoot weddings. You can find used "D" versions for well under $1000. This lens will also be great on a second body when you are shooting sports.</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Sorry Ed but I think having the VR is a necessity to shoot weddings. A couple of stops can make a huge difference.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>I'm glad you have an ATM in your bag. You're going to need it. :)</p>

<p>I agree about the 300 on a stick. A zoom will be much more versitile for you. You are probably only going to use the 300 during the ceremony, and it will have to be tossed aside pretty quickly after the kiss when the couple starts trotting toward you at happy speed.<br>

Then at the "outside" part, you may get some use out of it, but I wouldn't keep that perspective for very long. You end up with a lot of great tight portraits, but you might do better moving among the people and varying it up a bit.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>What lenses is up to you. I don't, for instance, think the 70-200mm is the 'obvious' choice. I think you can be fine for low light, no flash shots with a 50mm or 85mm, depending upon whether you are allowed to move. And use of a tripod is something you do if you need to, not something you decide 'not' to do because it isn't what a pro does (or so one thinks). You can get perfectly fine images and not miss out on anything using a tripod. It does require a little more planning and technique than just showing up with a VR/IS lens though.</p>

<p>This is the thing--if you're going to continue shooting weddings, then you get the gear that will allow you to cover all kinds of weddings. If you aren't, and are just shooting the one wedding or two, it does not make sense to get all the expensive gear that you might not use otherwise.</p>

<p>However, I do think your 300mm will not be so useful for weddings. And don't know why you are so against Tamrons. Certain ones are up there next to Canon L lenses or top of the line Nikon lenses re image quality.</p>

<p>I would ask, for this wedding, are not allowed to use flash, are you allowed to move? Is the church large? These factors will help you determine what you might need.</p>

[savagesax]

I'm sort of a nut when it comes to lenses. At weddings I have everything from a fish eye to 400mm. The lens that gets the most use is the 24-105mm. I think the 24-70mm is a better lens, but I don't like the weight. Anyway, I shoot almost everything with the 24-105. If the reception room is packed in with tables, I like the 16-35mm a lot on full framed cameras. The Nikon 17-35 is simply fantastic. Maybe pick up a wide angle or rent one.

 

The 300mm is ok for a few shots in the back of the church, other than that leave it home. For the first dance you can get pretty creative with the 50 1.4, such as using only thr room light, if it's bright enough, or use the light from the video guy.

[fotografz]

<p>If I may suggest a less obvious choice. Since you have the wide (14mm) to short telephoto (70mm) pretty much covered, consider the Nikon 105/2.8 VR Macro.</p>

<p>That lens will give you the field of view of a 158mm lens on the Nikon crop frame cameras to provide a little more reach ... add a 1/4X and you get even more reach (220mm field of view)</p>

<p>This is one of the new AFS, nano-crystal coated optics from Nikon, and is a spectacular performer. It features Vibration reduction (VR) for hand holding ... and will solve your macro issue ... the VR is very handy for macro shots BTW.</p>

<p>I sold my 70-200/2.8 VR for lack of use. Every time I checked the exif info on the files it showed I was using it at around 120 to 150mm 90% of the time. I now just use the 100 macro with a 1.4X.</p>

<p>Just a thought,</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>

<p>One weak link is the lack of a second Flash Unit.<br>

The other is that you do not have a fast Prime, should you need to shoot without Flash.<br>

Regarding the latter, a fast 35 or similar will be the most useful on an APS-C camera, if you can roam.<br>

Those two items just about use up the AUS$1,000, I think – if this is a one off, renting / borrowing would be a practical solution.</p>

<br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>“The idea is to shoot indoor shots with the two smaller lenses, and for outdoor shots change lenses for telephoto shots, hoping this gives me time to let the group do what they want then capture it. . . I know the obvious lens would be the 70-200mm but I don't exactly have the cash for that”</em></strong></p>

<p>IMO, a 24 to 70 on a D300 should have ample reach, outside, to let the group do what they want and capture it.</p>

<p>In regards to the other lenses you mention, I am confused about the meaning of: <em>“maybe get a 50 f1.4 or the 85mm <strong>but has to be the best macro too</strong>, I'm so [disappointed] with the macro on my Sigma” </em>, if you could explain your connection between the 50F/1.4 and 85 Prime lenses and Macro, please? . . . does it mean you want something like the 105 (mentioned above - Marc's post)?</p>

<p>Also, I think we need to know whether Weddings are to be your long term goal – is so then the whole question takes on a different meaning – if this is a one off Wedding, then likely the gear you have will be sufficient, provided it is not too dark at the Ceremony and / or you are allowed to use Flash.</p>

<p>In any case, I doubt the 300 will be of much use, unless you are at St Mary’s Cathedral (or similar) and relegated the rear Quire Stalls.</p>

<p><br />WW</p>

[robert_camillo]

<p>Hey guys thankyou so much for the comments, and I laughed at some replies too good comedy.</p>

<p>Firstly, Weddings are something I want to experiment with, I've become bored with commercial and landscape photography, and I've found my area has to involve people. I need people to keep me going, and keep me motivated. I want to turn it into a regular job for me.</p>

<p>I'm thinking now the 300mm is a no go. I know a full body shot is 30 odd metres away. What I'm looking for however is the occasional head and shoulders shot. I know at f2.8 my 300mm offers unbelievable depth of field. And the sharpness is incredible. With the Macro, I'm not sure, I thought the 85mm had the macro, but the 105 sounds great. I'd like to know what the 105mm does DOF wise? I'm sure it will be amazing indoors.</p>

<p>If I went for the 105mm, I'd use that indoors, but how about outdoors? would you go the 14-24 and 105mm or 24-70mm and 105mm? I am thinking the 105 sounds better than the 70-200.<br>

I don't think I need too much more too soon, I wouldn't want to buy too much too early, build up my castle first.</p>

<p>I'm just curious about the post on the Umbrella or softbox, whatever you use. Don't you guys shoot into the sun at all??? I love that effect, especially with directional lighting. works a treat on the beach. Thats why I want to use the umbrella. Ok in Summer, outdoor shots is all reflectors, but what about stormy days, we could really use an umbrella here surely?</p>

<p>Again thanks for the comments, I would seriously have thought the only option was the 70-200. I'm confident I have a good range of equipment, and with a few additions can be on my way.</p>

[ed farmer - mount laurel,]

<p>With all due respect, to say that VR is a "necessity" to shoot weddings makes no sense. I have photographed 100's of weddings digitally without it. Back when I was shooting film, VR and IS didn't even exist. What on Earth would make it a necessity?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I shoot in the sun a lot, with off camera flashes and directional light, but I don't use umbrellas. They blow over in any kind of wind. I also don't use reflectors, because I work alone and reflectors require assistants, and they make people squint. As for stormy days--same thing--umbrellas will blow over. Not so much concern about the umbrella, but your flash will be trashed too.</p>

<p>I'd also be careful about telling people you want to 'experiment' with weddings--both prospects and other wedding photographers. People might get the idea you're just playing, and that isn't good when you're talking about an even that you can't 'do over'.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>UMBRELLAS / OUTSIDE:<br>

I also work outside in sun, or dusk - often, especially for the Formals. I do not use umbrellas very often at all outside - same reason as Nadine – they blow about. <br>

Sometimes I do have an assistant and I do use reflectors, usually the GOLD side, but note that I am banging the reflector in at about 45 degrees for some golden hue side kick and nearer sunset than that midday “squinty” sun.<br>

Other than that one flash on a cable hand held for fill is a usual set-up.<br>

<br>

Reiterating - as we now know Weddings are a long term goal - please note above what I consider to be gross shortcomings in your present kit. <br>

<br>

WW</p>