Nikon Wedding Lens(es)

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Okay, I need a little help here. I am about to get a D300 and I will be shooting Weddings and Studio/Outdoor portraits. I have approx. $700-$900 to spend on a lens or combo of lenses. I have shot weddings before and I used to have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 DX that did the job "ok". It was really soft wide open and really wasn't fast enough for a lot of situations. Should I break the bank and try to get a Nikon 17-55 2.8 and maybe incorporate a monopod to help out, or should I use a combination of primes. Maybe a 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.4? My other option is the Sigma 18-50 2.8, it's affordable but I'm scarred that it will perform just like my 24-70 did. Help please, I don't want to throw my money away!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>When you say the Sigma wasn't fast enough, are you talking about auto-focus agility/speed, or the amount of light it was dragging in? f/2.8 is f/2.8 ... but you mentioned you're buying a D300. What were you using before? Will you still be using that other camera as your backup while shooting weddings? We sort of need the big picture, here. <br /><br />If you go with the prime lenses you mentioned, are you going to be keeping different lenses mounted on different bodies, or are you set with the skill, timing, and the right bag/rig to swap lenses in a hurry?<br /><br />The 17-55 is a bread and butter wedding lens on a DX body. A good quality used one will cost you a little more than the high end of your budget.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To help refresh Matt and everybody else's memory, Chauncey asked about getting a new DSLR yesterday: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UElO">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UElO</a> The OP has been using a D70 before.</p>

<p>And there is another current thread about a zoom for wedding photography, although the topic is slight different: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UEhq">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UEhq</a></p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>When I say the Sigma wasn't fast enough, I mean 2.8 isn't fast enough for plenty of my situations. I feel like I really need a 1.8 or better yet a 1.4, but I'm not experienced with Prime lenses, and I really don't know what to expect. Of course I would like the versatility of a zoom, but like I mentioned, I don't feel like there is a zoom out there that is fast enough. For most situations 2.8 is okay, but while the ceremony is going on, you need to be able to snap shots w/o flash and almost every church that i've shot in has HORRIBLE available light, so a 2.8 doesn't do the trick.<br>

As far as what I used to shoot with, it was/is a D70. Yes, I will keep it as a secondary/backup and I have thought about putting a wide angle or zoom on it and putting a 1.4 or 1.8 on the D300 or vice versa.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If the Sigma f2.8 is not fast enough, the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 isn't going to be any faster. However, you are also changing camera bodies. The D300 should be able to give you an extra stop or two in terms of high ISO performance. As a result, f2.8 could be fast enough with a new body.</p>

<p>And you can always add the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S to give you another stop or a bit more.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Thank you Shun, I guess you're right about the D300 giving me more flexibility. I'm really kind of wondering if it's worth the extra $600 to get the Nikon 17-55 instead of the Sigma 18-50. I keep thinking that I could possibly get the Sigma and put the rest away to save for a 70-200 2.8 VR!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you're going to make money out of this, the 17-55 will earn itself back. It is a robust lens made to be handled day in day out in less friendly and caring ways. The Sigma 18-50 build isn't half as inspiring, and it zooms the wrong way around (which to some may be no issue, I find it terribly annoying). The extra $600 does go somewhere - build quality and good quality control. I'm very sure that most people on this forum will recommend the Nikkor (as happens in nearly every thread that mentions ~18-xx zooms).</p>

<p>As a pro, you will need reliable goods, and even though you cannot endlessly invest in a start-up business, you should also avoid starting with too cheap goods that need replacement/repair too often or that do not do the job well enough, since that will cost you more money. So apart from being f/2.8 and have a specific focal range, do keep a sharp eye on reliability, service options and so on.<br>

(Yeah, I'm a hobbyist, but I know which lens would be the first I'd buy when I'd become a wedding pro using a D300 - the 24-70 f/2.8.. and with that same order a SB900)</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>It should be added as well, that I have a very reliable SB800 Flash, I just prefer to only use it when I have to obviously. Thanks for all of the input, keep it coming please!</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>If I were a wedding photographer, and I'm not, and I didn't have a D300, and I do, I'd purchase a D700 as the most important investment possible for wedding/low light photography around. I'd then outfit it with primes until I could afford the proper "wedding" zooms, most notably the 24-70, 2.8. </p>

<p>Just my $0.02.</p>

[bms]

<p>What do you have on the long end? <strong>If</strong> you'll make money off this, consider renting a 70-200VR for a weekend - you can handhold that at decent speeds indoors (ISO 800 or 1600 at 1/100 may work). Otherwise, with your budget, consider a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and maybe a used 105mm f/2.5 AI-S, or 85mm f/1.8 for candid/portraits.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Benjamin, I really don't have anything on the long end right now, that's why I threw that in there about the 85mm 1.8. I'm very tempted by it, but in order to afford it I would have to get the Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50 instead of JUST buying the Nikon 18-55. It's a tough call because I don't want a "cheap" lens, but I really kind of need two "good" lenses to cover normal lengths at low light and tele at low light. I kind of feel like I'm leaning towards the Sigma 18-50 and the Nikon 85 1.8. Then I can ultimately upgrade to the Nikon 18-55 and 70-200 VR. I simply don't have the $ right now, I can stretch my budget a little, but not enough to get the Nikon 17-55 AND something else. I have considered renting the 70-200 VR, in fact I think that I will for my next upcoming wedding.</p>

[papa_john]

<p>If you are on DX, rent a 17-55, 105/2.5 it might be too long on a DX. 24-70, sb 600-800-900 and a D700 is the best I think.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I know you may not like this, but I recommend that you get the D700+24-70/2.8 Nikkor. You can shoot an entire wedding with just this setup. It'll save you money in the long run as you don't have to search for ever-faster lenses for your DX camera. If you're not allowed close to the altar during the ceremony then you may need to get a long lens; the 70-200 is obviously fine but quite pricey, or you could get the 105 VR - it can be used for ring and decoration close-ups as well, whereas the 85mm or 70-200 may not get you close enough, depending on the effect you want. Sometimes the right tool for the job stands out very clearly and this is one such case. I have used faster glass than f/2.8 for weddings but I <em>could </em> make do with just 24-70 and no one would notice, but me. I could not do that with the 17-55+D300; it'll leave you wanting more and you'll end up paying more in the end as you replace your kit.</p>

<p>If you absolutely can not afford the D700+24-70 and need an upgrade now, then get the D90+17-55/2.8+35/1.8 and maybe the 85/1.8; the difference in the body prices between the D300 and D90 will let you get a fast prime or two, and that kind of kit will work quite well; you'll have the speed where it is needed most (telephoto). While the autofocus of the D90 (the same module as in the D200) is not as good as that of the D300 or D700, it is better than the AF on the D70, so you'll feel a significant improvement. The D90 rates better than the D300 for high ISO image quality on dxomark.com's tests. Think carefully where you spend your money. I don't have anything against the D300 - in fact I am considering getting the D300s for some macro and tele work - but for weddings FX is the ticket, not DX and if you are getting a DX kit you'll need faster glass than f/2.8 so it's best to spend money on that rather than a high end body which may not get you a substantial advantage in terms of low light image quality. Anyway, that's my two cents, good luck with your decision. ;-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think the OP has stated very clearly about budget limitations. I am sure every wedding photographer can benefit from having a couple of D3 bodies and hire an assistant or two to help out during the wedding, but sometime that is simply not realistic.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Thanks again Shun, I'm sorry that I don't have $4500+ to drop on the dream wedding outfit, maybe in a few years I can, but that's completely out of the question right now. Maybe you're right, it's better to have the best so that it doesn't cost more in the long run, but if I put all I've got plus more that I don't into an outfit like that, then I have NOTHING left for anything else and I'm already setting myself up for failure. I don't want to be another failed photographer with Pro level equipment and nothing to do with it except sell it for a loss.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you plan on shooting a lot of weddings, then by all means invest in a 17-55. you can get similar IQ from a sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50, but you cant get the build quality from either one.</p>

<p>i dig what you're saying about available-light during the ceremony, but the problem with using just primes for this is, unless you also have a second body (preferably with similar high-ISO capabilities), you will be switching lenses constantly and also there will be significant gaps in your coverage. another problem with those three primes you mentioned is that none are super-sharp wide-open. probably the 50/1.4 would be the best compromise (and would give you the most low-light wiggle room on your d70), but watch out for focus errors due to narrow DoF if you go that route.</p>

<p>the difference between a d70 and d90/d300 is considerable in terms of ISO performance, so 2.8 with a zoom shouldnt be a huge problem. you should also get to know your flash a little bit better, and perhaps consider investing in a sb-600 or two to be used off-camera along with your 800 in Commander mode.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Eric, I've been thinking more and more about getting a SB600 or two for just that purpose. I would really like to delve into using the Creative lighting system. Do you use it often, or for that matter, does anyone here use it often? I would like to know more about it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>chauncey, currently i just have one sb-600 which is ok for now since i'm not doing weddings and formal shoots. but i'm sure there are many Pnetters who can fill in on their experiences for you. there's also a lot of info/tutorials/etc. online at Strobist: http://strobist.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>basically, as i understand it, CLS allows you to control multiple speedlights, placed in various locations, from your camera. this is huge for weddings and the like. for formal portraits, you can supply your own backlighting, side lighting, etc., without having to drag some big monolights/umbrellas, stands, etc. along. adorama has clips with hotshoes which can be attached to chairs so you dont even need stands to do this. ultimately, if you keep doing weddings, you will probably want to travel down the CLS path; good lighting can be even more important than good lenses and really give your shots that extra 'pro' look.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>Is this a good deal, I guess I mean, should I do this deal? I can get the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 for $800 combined. They are both the latest version of each with HSM. It seems like a good deal b/c the 18-50 sells for $420 new and the 70-200 sells for $800 new. They look as though they are in great condition, but I can only view them online since it's through Ebay... I know I know, ebay is the devil, but I've bought plenty of stuff on there before with no problems. It seems like a decent solution to my problem, or am I delusional?</p>

[ad12345]

<p>Chauncey<br>

You're getting all kinds of good advice - but ultimately the gear you get will have to match your working style. One post above mentioned the D90 - which I agree you should seriously consider. The D90 would free up a few dollars for glass. Perhaps your local camera store will let you try one out for a weekend so you can make your own mind up. The test results on Dxomark are impressive - noticeably better than the D300 in terms of dynamic range, which is the most important measure for available light wedding photography. The noise levels are slightly better than the D300 but not quite up to the D700's amazing numbers.<br>

Of couse the autofocus isn't as versatile as the D300 and you lose a few other nice to have features, but for weddings you will probably find it more than adequate. The D300 really shines when you use the 3D predictive focus for fast moving objects, which you probably won't encounter unless the bride is so excited she's running down the aisle.<br>

A word of advice about the 85 1.8, which is small, light and is pretty sharp and is available at a nice price - it has some very noticeable purple fringing when you shoot it at f2.4 or wider, expecially when you've got lots of contrast such as a groom in a white shirt and a black tux. This can be fixed, but it adds another step to your post-processing workload. You can probably use this lens in most situations, but be careful with it until you know exactly what your results will be.<br>

Perhaps try an AF-S 50mm 1.4G or the AF-S DX 35 1.8 G out on your D70 and see how many of your shots can be accomplished with these two focal lengths and lens speeds. You might be surprised at the results you get from even this level of investment. Even though you have fewer megapixels to work with, the noise levels and dynamic range of the D70 are virtually identical to the D300.<br>

Also seriously consider renting some excellent glass on either side of the normal range (the full frame AF-S 17-35 2.8, 85 1.4D or the AF-S DX 17-55 2.8) to see if any of those will work for you. This would use a few bucks up, but after a few days of shooting with them you would have a very good idea what they could do for you.<br>

Once you've started making money you can drop a few grand on a pair of full-frame bodies and buy the lenses and lighting you know you will need. Just remember that even if you bought a D700 right now, something better will be available next year for less money. </p>

[robert_goguen]

<p>I shoot weddings for a living full-time... my rig: D700\24-70 2.8\SB900... nothing else needed except for a backup of course! I just got F0ed with my rig (while shooting a ceremony) and had to grab my backup (Canon 5D). You can also purchase just two lenses (primes) to get the job done well. A Nikkor 28 and 50 (or 85) lens. Your budget will cover both lenses. AND buy a D700... you won't regret it... unless you get F0ed!</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Get the 18-55/2.8 and buy a good flash like an SB800. Everyone's gone stupid about available light photography. This is a wedding, not a back street at dusk. Yes, learning all about using flash well is a learning curve, but if you are charging $$$ then you will be expected to produce nice, bright, clear and sharp photos. The new flash units and a D300 are a good match, with the camera and flask working automatically together. With flash you could even go to the really good 18-70 3.5 DX. I have that and its got more zoom reach (out to the equivalent of 105) than the 18-55, is super sharp, focusses fast and its cheap. A sleeper lens.</p>

[tomislav_kovacicek]

<p>Chaunchey, If I were you, I'd skip buying D300 and get D90. For the rest of the money I'd get Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and if any left - save the money for D700.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Because I think D300 isn't gonna get you more picture quality nor usability in wedding jobs you're about to do, it can only be more comfortable to use it. It has better grip (you can buy mb10 grip for D90 like I did), better autofocus (I haven't noticed much focus speed difference though + 11 points is more than enough), weatherseal, etc..<br />And the price difference isn't small, despite d90 using same sensor as D300 - which means the exactly same picture quality.<br>

I'm curently using d90+17-55 combo for my weddings and I'm satisfied. Very satisfied.<br>

In future - D700+24-70 is obvious choice, until then -- D90 is my best value for money.</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>For most wedding situations, the best lens is the Nikon 24-70 2.8. It's well out of the price range you suggested but there's plenty of places that rent it (around here it's about $30 for a weekend), so try renting it for the first few weddings.</p>

[davidsargent]

<p>I use a D300 to shoot weddings. In your situation I would buy the Nikon 17-55 and rent the Nikon 70-200 VR. The D300 and 17-55 has always been good enough to shoot in some pretty poor light for me. Don't be too afraid by high iso's, the images come out well with that combination and it is always better to get something than nothing.<br>

Be warned though that as soon as you have used the 70-200 you will need one in a 'Gollum wants the precious' sort of way!!!</p>