Any major problems with this lineup?

[imagesbymonroe]

<p>I have been shooting weddings and other events with a rented Nikon 17-55mm and using my sigma 30mm 1.4 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 also which I find myself preferring more and more for the images they produce in natural light.<br>

I have a sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 and Nikons 85mm 1.8 and 80-200Dmm 2.8 at my disposal that I own also.<br>

When I first started It was the 17-55 / 80-200mm that did all the work. I am now in a position to purchase a 17-55mm but I am now wondering why don't I just use the 30mm - 50mm and 85mm and 80-200mm at these ceremonies only. It seems that I can move back or forward with the primes and not really miss the 17-55mm.<br>

Is this a practical decision of reserving cash for something else in the future ( I already have sb800/ backup D80 and reflector) or am I putting myself in jeopardy at an event/wedding without the 17-55mm?<br>

Please share your thoughts!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>It appears that you are in the best position to judge whether or not you need the 17-55. The lens is certainly too expensive to have in the bag "just in case"; the Tamron 17-50/2.8 might be a more prudent selection for such a scenario as it costs about 1/3 of the Nikkor. With primes only, there is always the danger that you get caught with the wrong lens on the camera - but it also a question of shooting style.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

The 17-55 and 80-200 cover 90 percent of everything I do. The 17-55 is probably my favorite and by far most used dx lens. If you have the cash I'd say go ahead and get it. Renting a lens you are using often isn't cost effective. I know it's pricey but will be a good long term purchase and will last over several generations of camera bodies.

 

Rick H.

[Matt Laur]

<p>As a guy who loves the two primes you mention, and also uses your 80-200's cousin, the 70-200, I can tell you that if I was shooting weddings, I'd still get the 17-55. Too much lens changing on the fly, otherwise. But you'd sure want those two fast primes in the bag, for what they do so well when you can deliberately use the.<br /><br />Otherwise, without the 17-55, I'm afraid you'd have trouble with the wide end of things. Your 10-20 looks great in the 15-20mm range, but it's too slow for dim venues.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the 17-55mm will pay for itself. i believe a wide zoom is a must for weddings and other events. do not compromise your reputation by relying on primes alone. yes, you bring them of course. but they stay in your pockets or on a second body.</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>I agree with Dieter's take: pick up the Tamron 17-50. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and sacrifices very little in terms of image quality.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Zooms are very fast to use, and you're less likely to miss fast breaking shots. I own the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Both lenses are excellent. I don't see any difference in quality between them. Personally, I hate to be changing lenses while in a hurry. Dust could float in on the sensor and screw up some images. Might miss a fleeting shot. MIght also get rushed and drop a lens. No reason to not use pro quality zooms.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>