To zoom or not to zoom?

[acute]

<p>Many rave about the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 zoom and say it is a "must have" lens for wedding photography, that it does 90+ percent of the work for them. But here is my thinking: I've got two DX bodies, I've got a 35mm prime, a 50mm and an 85mm. All I'm missing (seems to me) is a nice wider angle prime and I will be covered. But wait: I've got an 18-70mm zoom: at 18mm it is a 3.5 - just one stop above the 17-55 zoom. With two DX bodies I can certainly manage without having to switch lenses feverishly: after all a wedding is not such an extremely fast paced event. If a group is larger I can work with the 18mm zoom, if not so large, the 35mm will do. And I can always carry the 50mm or the 85mm on the other body. Do I really need the 17-55mm zoom?</p>

[tangibleimages]

<p>Your 18-70 is ONLY 3.5 at 18mm. At anything else, your aperture shrinks. f/2.8 is a lot faster than f/3.5 (as you've noted, twice as fast)...and vastly superior to f/5.6.<br>

Unless the wedding is outdoors and in daylight, I would NOT use such a slow aperture lens and I shoot FF so could boost ISO pretty high to compensate. I often find my 2.8 zooms to be too slow indoors, prompting me to go to my 1.4 lenses (50 and 85).<br>

That's just me, though.</p>

[starvy]

<p>If it is the kit lens then perhaps it is not suitable in professional work. You should see quite a difference in quality when compared to those excellent primes.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Also of note: the 17-55/2.8's distortion at the wide end is much less wacky than that of the kit zoom. And, there's simply no comparing the way those two classes of lenses render out-of-focus backgrounds, especially in busy settings (often with point sources of light or other contrasty/shiny objects in the background). And I agree with Jake that you'll be annoyed by how quickly that kit zoom slows down the moment you tighten up the shot. And even if you <em>don't </em>care that it gets slower, the real killer for me is the <em>variable</em> nature of the aperture as you change (even a bit!) focal length. Depending on how you handle light/flash and similar exposure issues, that can be a real PITA.<br /><br />A happy medium might be the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Not as rugged as Nikon's, but a favorite for a lot of people looking to avoid some of the cost.</p>

[acute]

<p>I don't think the 18-70 is a kit lens. But in any case, if that doesn't cut it, all I might need is a wide angle prime to cover any scenario and I'll do better at f/1.8 than the 17-55 at f/2.8.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I have only shot one wedding and it was for a friend several years ago. I shot it entirely with fixed focal length lenses and almost exclusively one lens, probably equivalent to a 35mm FF lens of a 20-24mm focal length(shot MF camera).</p>

<p>I think it is totally a matter of style and your working method. I didn't have a zoom and I didn't miss it. Now, I shoot a dSLR much of the time and when I got it, I got all zooms. I still use one lens most of the time and I would venture to say that 90% of my shots are in the 16-24mm range(FF).</p>

<p>I don't think there is any reason to or not to get the zoom. But if things work great for you as is, why bother?</p>

[acute]

<p>To be more specific: I'm thinking of getting the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 which will give me the following lineup:<br>

20mm<br>

35mm<br>

50mm<br>

85mm<br>

with the 20mm being f/2.8 and all the others f/1.8. Isn't that better (or at least just as good) as the zoom?</p>

[william-porter]

<p><em><strong>"But here is my thinking: I've got two DX bodies, I've got a 35mm prime, a 50mm and an 85mm. All I'm missing (seems to me) is a nice wider angle prime and I will be covered. But wait: I've got an 18-70mm zoom: at 18mm it is a 3.5 - just one stop above the 17-55 zoom. With two DX bodies I can certainly manage without having to switch lenses feverishly: after all a wedding is not such an extremely fast paced event. If a group is larger I can work with the 18mm zoom, if not so large, the 35mm will do. And I can always carry the 50mm or the 85mm on the other body. Do I really need the 17-55mm zoom?"</strong></em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what the question is here. There is no such thing as a "must have" lens. If you are going to shoot with a zoom lens, then yes, in addition to wanting a constant f/2.8 aperture and excellent image quality, you'd want to have a zoom range like 17-55 or 18-50 or 28-75.</p>

<p>But if you are asking if you need a zoom at all, then answer is, not necessarily. If you want to work with primes, you certainly can. I do and I'm not unique.</p>

<p>You said you have a 35, 50 and 85? I assume they all have a max aperture of at least f/2.8 and that all of them have excellent image quality. If so, you could shoot a wedding with just those three lenses. Heck, if you had to, you could shoot a wedding with just one of those lenses (preferably the 35, I think), although I don't advise it.</p>

<p>However, I think you are right to want another, wider lens. Here are the lenses I take to a wedding:</p>

<ol>

<li>Sigma 10-20 (my one zoom)</li>

<li>Pentax 21 f/3.2 limited</li>

<li>Sigma 28 f/1.8</li>

<li>Pentax 35 f/2.0</li>

<li>Pentax 40 f/2.8 limited</li>

<li>Pentax 50 f/1.4</li>

<li>Pentax 70 f/2.4 limited</li>

<li>Sigma 105 f/2.8</li>

</ol>

<p>Obviously I shoot with Pentax bodies (1.5x crop factor, like your Nikon, so the 35mm equivalent range here is from 15mm to about 160mm). I bring three bodies with me. One stays in the car as an emergency backup and I work with two bodies.</p>

<p>Before the wedding, I may use the 21 and 28 for dressing room shots. These are the slowest lenses in my bag but I use them mainly when I'm shooting with flash.</p>

<p>During the wedding, I'll use the two lenses whatever I have previous decided on. If I was using the 28 earlier, it probably stays on that body, and I add a telephoto—the 50, 70 or 105 depending on where I'm placed and how much freedom of movement I'm permitted during the ceremony.</p>

<p>At the reception, well, it depends on how I feel, what the light is like, and other factors, but the most useful focal lengths for the reception seem to be 28, 35 and/or 40.</p>

<p>I try to change lenses no more than twice during the day and I'm very careful—and quick—when I do it.</p>

<p>My Sigma lenses (28 and 105) are both fairly big and heavy. The Pentax lenses on the other hand are all small. The 40 is a pancake and the 21 and 70 are almost as small. The 40 seems to be less intimidating to people. (I remember the first time I mounted the 40 and went to take a picture of my daughter, she informed me that I didn't have a lens on the camera.)</p>

<p>Anyway, it's not necessary to go to all this trouble. I would not want to surrender the 105 during the ceremony. But for the rest of the day, I think I could almost always get by with the 28 and one other lens, the 40, 50 or 70. </p>

<p>Bottom line: You CAN make it work, if you want to. I want to and I think shooting with primes has a number of advantages that matter to me personally. But now that zoom lenses are optically excellent, I can certainly understand why most people prefer them.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Hmm.. I prefer primes. I just find the quality to be better and it's one less thing to worry about. Just personal preference. :)</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>I switch between primes and zooms fairly loosely.</p>

<p>I shot weddings on primes only for the last four years and didn't feel compromised at all. I've now added the range of FX 2.8 zooms to my kit, but find myself still reaching for primes fairly often. Zooms are convenient but there's a trade off in quality, even with the flagship lenses. And 2.8 can often be uncomfortably slow. Losing 2 (or 3) stops is noticable, and you'll probably feel it even more if you're using DX.</p>

<p>Do you really need to add a zoom? Frankly, no. Do you want to add one? That has to be your personal choice.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The 18-70 that is mentioned was a kit lens with the D70 and D200 (possibly D300 too) it predates the 18-55 that comes in the current Nikon Kits... As kit lenses go - it was one of the better ones, IMHO, - and the resale prices seem to indicate general agreement... The only thing it doesn't do well is low light. </p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is my primary wedding lens with the 18-70 as my backup for portrait work... For back of the church my 70-200 is on the body and ready to go.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>The 20mm or the wide zoom would both be fine--depends on your style and preferences. Another factor is whether you will be using the wide end for group shots only/mostly. If so, you obviously don't need the fastest apertures. If you are also going to do candids, then you may. If the latter, lens quality isn't that big a deal since at the mid apertures, most consumer grade lenses are perfectly decent--more than decent. I wouldn't follow 'what people' say--follow your own inclinations, based on analysis of your methods and preferences.</p>

[anna_bravington]

<p>I love my Sigma 18-55 2.8 - it pretty much lives on my camera at a wedding.</p>

<p>Saying that some of the primes are pretty lovely too - I shot a friends wedding (just as a guest) soley on a 50mm (was arond 75mm on my camera) 1.7 - just for the fun of it.</p>

<p>Only you can answer the question whether you'll need that lens, we all shoot differently. My assistant uses a longer lens to me and get lots of close crops as that's what he likes to do. Just get what works for you. You could always rent one and try it out - if you like it then buy it?</p>

[ejder]

<p>There are a few times when I miss my 24-70, but most of the time I am perfectly happy with primes. I started moving to primes and away from zooms in the middle of last year when I got an 85L and 35L, and since then I sold my 24-70 and almost never use the 70-200.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >“Many rave about the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 zoom and say it is a "must have" lens for wedding photography, that it does 90+ percent of the work for them.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >That’s why they rave – because that FL range pulls 90% of the shots – easypeezyjapaneasy – one lens solution . . . just like a 24 to 70/2.8 on a D700, D3, etc . . . that does not mean it will be the correct solution for you.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em >“I've got two DX bodies, I've got a 35mm prime, a 50mm and an 85mm. All I'm missing (seems to me) is a nice wider angle prime and I will be covered.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yep, agree.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“I've got an 18-70mm zoom: at 18mm it is a 3.5 - just one stop above the 17-55 zoom”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Well to pick nits it is not one stop slower, but nearly . . . but you could use it as an 18mm/F3.5 Prime (assuming it is as “good” or as “Bad” as the Canon Counterpart please see here: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10950622">http://www.photo.net/photo/10950622</a> and get quality results – but I could choose when and where (lighting) to use this kit lens to make these examples</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But my guess is that the CA will be as troublesome with the Nikon as with the Canon and also the Kit lenses (generally) are not really well baffled so the tendency to Flare, especially Veiling Flare is astounding. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now I am an advocate of not running the Kit Lens into the ground: but on the other hand the Kit Zoom Lens really <strong ><em >has no place in a Pro Wedding Kit other than as a Second Back Up Lens.</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em >A</em></strong>nd NO, IMO it does not make a good 18mm Prime,<strong ><em > for Wedding Use </em></strong>– because as sure as eggs, you will need to use it outside into side or high sun . . . and then you will likely be cactus.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“With two DX bodies I can certainly manage without having to switch lenses feverishly: after all a wedding is not such an extremely fast paced event.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree, with knowledge of the format of the Wedding, with two bodies and shooting Prime Lenses only: if one has good prediction, there is little effort in having the right FL ready - if your head is together – it is important to be at the correct vantage point..</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“If a group is larger I can work with the 18mm zoom, if not so large, the 35mm will do.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just on Groups – arrangement is the key. A 24mm on a DX body is very handy (a 20mm would do also) – 35mm is too long, mostly, for 10 or more, if you want to let the group “breathe” a bit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“To be more specific: I'm thinking of getting the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 which will give me the following lineup: 20mm; 35mm; 50mm; 85mm. With the 20mm being f/2.8 and all the others f/1.8. Isn't that better (or at least just as good) as the zoom?”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you can change lenses walking backwards with one hand and predict and be in the right spot – yep I agree – that kit is NOT “as good as” as a zoom, it is better – but you will be working for your money and consider that the time spent with the luxury of the zoom’s ability to let you sit back and take in a little ambiance of the moment . . . might just open the creative door for you to to see other things happening – and grab those too ? ? ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But as your question revolves about lens strategies, and is based upon Prime Lenses: for a working Wedding Kit based upon Prime lenses. . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p > ONE DX body and one FX BODY . . . AND A 35/1.4 AND 85/1.8 is more powerful and comprises two fewer lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think the quality of zoom lenses is so good these days, that whilst one can argue that the Wedding “can be covered with just primes” (and can be done to a very high standard with,for example predominately a 35/1.4: <a href="http://www.photo.net/featured-member/2009/march/ian-taylor-people-photographer">http://www.photo.net/featured-member/2009/march/ian-taylor-people-photographer</a>), it seems reasonable to argue that a standard fast (F/2.8) zoom will give the Working Professional great leverage and flexibility even if it is used for only parts of the entire Wedding Coverage.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just sticking to debating Prime lenes . . . FYI: </p>

<p >My “Short” Wedding and Events Kit is has two cameras and four lenses:</p>

<p > <em >Working Two Cameras</em>: APS-C Body + FF Body (+ one additional APS-C Spare)</p>

<p ><em >Lenses</em>: 16 to 35/2.8 zoom; 24/1.4; 50/1.4; 135/2 (maybe a x1.4MkII extender). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >That kit gives me FoV equivalent 16 to 35 F/2.8 zoom or a 25 to 56 F/2.8 zoom. </p>

<p >And FoV Primes: 24/1.4; 38/1.4; 50/1.4; 80/1.4; 135/2; 189/2.8; 216/2; 302/2.8.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just look at the Primes only (forget the 16 to 35 zoom)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO I have a truck-load of Prime Force, with only three lenses and one tele-extender. . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If we are just debating lens theory and then the Practical Application at a Wedding, Function or Social Event, IMO, my kit of Primes, is a much more powerful and far more System Redundant(*1), than the four Prime Lenses and Two Camera Bodies which you are suggesting.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*1 System Redundancy – IMO: trash any one lens or any one body in my kit and I can limp on better that if one lens or one body is trashed in your kit – but more importantly trash TWO items in either of our kits and I can limp on better than you – especially, if for example, two lenses are trashed. Extreme theory and ideas I accept, but we are just thinking out aloud – and I liked the basis of your thinking.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What do you think? </p>

<p > </p>