Questions about lenses

[kye_brown]

<p>I was wondering. What do you think the best lense to use for a wedding is? If the wedding is indoor or outdoor? I am thinking about getting into weddings and my cousin has gave me to opportunity to shoot her wedding. Currently I shoot with a Nikon D70 and I have a 18-70, a 50mm 1.8 and also a 18-200. Thanks in advance for your help.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>you should check out the wedding forum. shooting weddings is about a lot more than which lenses to use. do your cousin and yourself a favor, and make sure you understand what's involved before jumping in with both feet.<br>

as for your question: you can't go wrong with the 17-55/2.8 for DX cameras.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>Look through the Wedding forum for too many posts on this subject.</p>

<p>I've also heard that if you're asking questions about what equipment to use, you're not ready to shoot a wedding.</p>

<p>Although no one ever listens to the people making this same advice, but whatever you do, make sure you have at least 2 camera bodies, preferably with the same batteries, more than enough memory cards, and flash batteries. Don't think that you can only do it with just one body.</p>

<p>On lenses though, go with whatever works for your style. Some people, like me, prefer fast lenses and no flash. I like isolating my subjects with blurred backgrounds and shooter either really wide or really tight. 90% of my work could be shot with a 24mm, 50mm and a 135mm at f/2 or f/2.8.</p>

<p>The 17-55 f/2.8 is a favorite amongst most Nikon DX shooters. I prefer my 28-70 on my D700. A 50mm is nice on both formats for portraits and a 70-200 is a choice lens too.</p>

 

[gogu]

<p>Have a look at the Nikon 16-85/3,5-5,6.<br>

Quite wide (24mm on DX) for group shots, enough tele (127mm) for portraits.<br>

The only drawback (but not a real problem as you are certainly going to use a flash) is its 3,5-5,6 max diaphragm.</p>

[elmroc]

<p>17-55 DX f2.8 and a VR 70-200 f2.8 G<br>

These are wedding standards!</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Gogu, the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR is not exactly ideal for weddings. (except outdoor weddings in day light) It's a slow variable aperture zoom lens with slow AF speed. </p>

<p>Anyway, Kye, I think most fast zooms (f/2.8) with the FLs of your choice or even faster primes would be ideal for what you do. </p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Hey how about 17-35 2.8? Wouldnt that be a good substitute for 17-55 2.8?</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>17-35 f/2.8 is way too short, I think.<br />And Shuo, the AF on the 16-85 is not that slow, equal to most primes in the same FL range in my experience. And it's not like all shots are at f/2.8 anyway, so with the 16-85 being already quite sharp wide open, it's not that bad a choice. It's certainly nicer on the physics after a day of carrying ;)</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I never shot weddings professionally, but I did shoot some weddings. The 18-70 I had back then sufficed for many shots, when you can use flash. For portrait-like shots and the very specific moments, fast primes do come in mighty handy.<br />But this is in Europe, where in general wedding photos seem to be a bit more after-thought than in the US, if what I read in the wedding forum is the norm for the US.</p>

<p>Are you going pro? Then get a 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8. Are you helping out a friend, or not yet sure, rent one of those 2, or get some primes (35 and 85, in my view on DX most useful). </p>

<p>Far more important, though: get a second body, get extra batteries, a pile of memory cards and flash (SB-600 at the least, with omnibounce and/or a bouncecard thing). A newer camera than the D70 with good ISO800 performance won't hurt either - so maybe rent/get something like a D90 or D300.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Nic pretty well nailed it. You need f2.8 zooms so you can focus in lower light, which is typically found in churches. Also, if you don't know what you need, it is a sign you don't quite yet know what you're doing. Study up on it more, maybe buy a book or two. Your camera is very marginal, you don't have any capable lenses, and what sort of lighting system do you have? You need to become an expert with flash--that's what the job is. Along with a hundred other skills of course.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>Kent's advice is solid. Unless you're shooting in <strong><em>very</em></strong> good light, you'll need 2.8 lenses and a camera that performs well at ISO 1600 (or above).<br>

I shot a wedding last year with a D300, 17-55, 28-70, 50 1.4, and 70-200...and I still had problems with the low light. It's the main reason I sold the D300 and moved to the D700. Skilled wedding photogs get paid a lot - and for a good reason.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You're shooting your first wedding as a favor for a relative?</p>

<p>BIG mistake. See the wedding forum.</p>

<p>The most challenging thing you might ever photograph is a bride in white and a groom in black. You need to seriously know what you're doing to shoot them. I know what I'm doing and will NOT EVER shoot a wedding as a favor for a relative or friend. I've been asked. I've said no.</p>

<p>You need 2.8 glass for this, too.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Shooting a wedding as a favor for some friends?</p>

<p>Many years ago, as a camera enthusiast, I said yes, shot the wedding (prime photographer), something happened to the press plate of my father's Nikon FE, and all images were damaged.</p>

<p>I lost two friends (Bride and groom) that night for many years.</p>

<p>I'll never, never, never shoot a friend's wedding again!</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Kye,<br>

I maybe was a bit deterministic in my previous post.</p>

<p>However, if you are not a wedding shooter, but just want to get into weddings, I strongly urge you to shoot the wedding as an assistant or an extra shooter, just to get the experience. See that there is a professional wedding shooter there as well.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Well, I did say yes too, to friends, and they said they were happy. But I brought 2 bodies, just in case :-)</p>

<p>This topic comes up pretty often in forums here, and everybody says: tell them to get a professional wedding shooter. But maybe the B&G just want nice pictures of the day, do not have the budget for a pro shooter, or no urge for one, etc. etc. They ask a friend/relative for a reason, and that reason may be sound.<br>

Do you still tell them to get a pro, or do you try to do them a favour (after explaining that you're not a pro, and that quality will not be like pro's) ? I know what I did, and I don't regret it. It taught me I don't want to be a wedding shooter, and that it's hard work. And difficult: black suit, white dress, it's the worst combination to shoot in bad light. But if I had doubts whether I could deliver, I would have said "no" - that's the one thing, only do it if you feel up to it. But to directly always say "no get a pro" is a bit too one-sided for me.<br>

Anyway, just as alternative thought.</p>

<p>I understand that a pro does better, but don't just always think on behalf of the couple asking a non-pro. They might know what they're doing, and it's not up to us to judge that.</p>

[gogu]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3918763">Shuo Zhao</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 25, 2009; 05:18 p.m.<br>

Gogu, the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR is not exactly ideal for weddings. (except outdoor weddings in day light) It's a slow variable aperture zoom lens with slow AF speed.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Shuo, I know it's not what a pro would ever use (I'm well aware the "industry" standard is the 17-55) but I've used the 16-85 to shoot a wedding and with the help of an SB-900 strobe all the shots came out perfect!<br>

I was just trying to propose a cheap alternative;-)</p>