Wedding lens at the church only !!

[orcama60]

<p>Soon, I will be shooting a wedding and the church will not allow me to take pictures using a flash. I do have a D300 and the 50 f/1.8 Nikon already. I can buy only one more lens but I am very doubtful to what I should get. It could be : Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and / or 85 mm f/1.4 D IF .... or any third party lens within the range between 17 - 55 or a bit higher. Personally, I do prefer Nikon lenses, but if I must go for a third party, then I would. The 17-55 is not that sharp at f/2.8 as the 85 mm f/1.4 is at f/2.8 and I do believe that I will need to be shooting at f/2.8 - f/4 for the ceremony at the church. The 17-55 will provide me with more range in the zoom and I do like this but I do not know, if, for a DX camera as the one I got, the 85 lens will be, under this scenario, the best choice. </p>

<p>Honestly, I do not want to be fighting with low light conditions. I will not be able to use tripod, monopod or flash. I will be using ISO between 800-1600 max depending on the lens chosen, and for low light conditions, the 85 is a much better choice than the 17-55 ... but this is the first time that I will be using one of those lenses under that scenario. Base on your experience, what lens would you choose for the wedding ? The wedding will be at 2:00 PM and the church has a lot of windows but who knows if that day will be raining or be cloudy or may be not, so I must be prepare for the worse. </p>

<p>If it is possible, I do not want to change lenses at the church. If it was one of you, which lens would you pick for this wedding under this scenario ? The 85 f/1.4 has too many advantages over the 17-55 that I do like : very bokeh, faster lens, very sharp in all respect at any aperture ( I love sharpness ) and very good for low light conditions. Only question is that, it does looks to me that it is a bit longer and this is why I need you to help to determine, as I said before, based on your own experience, which one would you pick. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>How far away will you be from the couple during the ceremony? I normally use the 24-70 on FX with some 105/135/200mm tighter shots. I could do it with just the 24-70.</p>

<p>The 17-55 should be ok if your image quality isn't compromised by other factors i.e. if you can use a fast enough shutter speed without going to excessively high ISO. The zoom provides in my opinion the most useful range for ceremony shots in close range. However, customs differ and you may need a longer lens if you're not allowed near the altar. In that case I guess the 85/1.4 can be used, or even 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>With a DX camera, I would preferentially use lenses like the 24/1.4, 35/1.8 DX, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 if the light levels are too low for the 17-55. Too low is if you can't get at least f/2.8 1/125s ISO 800.</p>

 

[homer_arment1]

<p>You may want to clarify when you can use flash and when it is forbidden. It has been a few years since I did weddings, but at that time even the churches that restricted flash during the ceremony allowed flash for the walking in shots. If that is the case with this church, you might want to consider the 50 mm for the walking in shots then switch to the 85 mm for available light shots during the ceremony then back to the 50 mm for the group and candid shots after the ceremony. If that isn't the case, I would look for a wide to short tele zoom like the 17-55 or perhaps a 24-70. IMHO with all the 85 mm has in its favor it is just too long of a lens for a general purpose wedding lens.</p>

[photo5]

<p>When we shot weddings, during the ceremony we stayed at the very back of the church behind the guests. We would place the camera (Mamiya RZ67) on a tripod and use the longest lens we had, the 180mm portrait lens. We would shoot stills with that during the ceremony, on Kodak TPZ, which if I recall correctly was an ISO 800 film. Just as the ceremony was wrapping up, we'd stow the RZ and get our candid 35mm kits ready with flash and shoot the couple as they reached the back of the aisle near the back of the church and shoot them getting into the getaway car, for example. With digital I'd use a tripod and a long zoom, either a 70-200mm or 70-300mm and shoot quietly without flash at a high ISO setting to freeze motion as best you can. Then switch to a 17-55mm as they come down the aisle.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I too would be considering the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 especially for the walking down the aisle shots on a crop body. The weddings I have seen don't allow flash during the ceremony but after the wedding you can often set up posed flash shots inside the church while the guests mill about outside.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 would be my choice for shots of the bride/groom during the wedding ceremony. Ideally you need two cameras for this, but you can probably limit your lens changes to one, once they're at the front and another after the ceremony is over. Good luck.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Around here is customary to shoot at the altar at any (reasonable, not disturbing) distance, where a 17-55 is enough for most "normal" shots. If you want tight portraits in that place, you`ll definitely need a longer lens.<br /> I used to use this lens for weddings and events not so far ago. I have already checked some pics from that events and find it to be very sharp, although I used to use flash for every shot on my D300.<br /> IMHO, the 17-55 was irreplaceable for that task. Way better than primes or other zooms to my liking.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Only one lens?</p>

<p>Well... for the price of the Nikkor 17-55 you can get the Tamron 17-50 AND a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AND a 35mm f1.8... That would be an unbeatable combo for "available darkness" photography.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I have already found a wedding where I used to shoot the pre and after ceremony without flash, at 800 and 1600ISO. Most at f2.8 and shutter speeds at the limit of handholdability, hence slightly or clearly blurred. That 17-55 sharpness was not as obvious here.<br>

I think I should had pushed the ISO a bit more to avoid -at least- camera shake and motion blur, even at the expense of increasing the already existing high noise.</p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>How far away will you be from the couple during the ceremony?</em></p>

<p>I do not have an answer for this very important question yet Ilkka because I have not talked yet to the priest but will definitely change my whole plan if for any reason, he does not allow me to be at the altar. If not, I will be obligated to use the 70-200 mm f/2.8 ( from the distance ) which I am planning to rent. </p>

<p>By the way, I also have the 35 mm f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 lenses. John, you are right. For the walking on the aisle, I am pretty sure they will allow me to use my SB-800 so that would not be a problem. </p>

<p>Now, got a question guys, will be the 85 mm f/1.4 D long enough to shoot the ceremony from the distance or not ? Have any of you done it before ? </p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>Only one lens?</em></p>

<p>Well, this is my initial idea Peter if it is possible, but I might have the need to change at least to another lens, depending if they do not allow me to shoot at the altar, but in case they allow me to be closer enough, only one lens would to the job. Considering that I will be shooting in low light, no flash, no monopod and I want my pictures to be as sharp as possible, then I guess the 85 mm f/1.4 is the best idea to use. What do you think ?</p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>Most at f2.8 and shutter speeds at the limit of handholdability, hence slightly or clearly blurred.</em><br>

Exactly Jose Angel, this is what I am trying to avoid. I will hate myself if one the pictures at the moment of the ceremony at the altar, is not sharp enough. This is a one chance event and I can not miss it. That is why I am starting to decline the idea to use the 17-55 because I want to use f/2.8, probably 1/160 ISO 800 and with this setup, there is not chance to get a blurry picture and the 85 f/1.4 will allow me to use that setup. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think to use a 85mm could be a solution for a few pics but pretty limited if your aim is a conventional wedding reportage. We can put aesthetical or other considerations aside, but think that the more distant the camera placement the higher movement needed to change the view point, hence if you don`t have enough room you run the risk of having many similar pics, and if there is enough room you`ll be runing everywhere during the ceremony... :(</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>FWIW, (years ago) I was waiting in a church entrance when I met a photographer that liked to work under what I think are similar conditions... available light, high ISO, wider apertures. Maybe you`d like to check him <a href="http://www.edwardolive.info/MenuEnglishGalleries.php">here</a> for ideas. I try to remember he used to use a 5D.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I fail to understand why you would need the 85/1.4 if you are planning on shooting at f/2.8 to f/4 anyway - wouldn't the 85/1.8 suffice under these circumstances? Roughly third of the price of the AF-D and a quarter of the AF-S one.</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>I have not talked yet to the priest (..) If not, I will be obligated to use the 70-200 mm f/2.8 ( from the distance ) which I am planning to rent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the key! It just deoends so much on the scenario. Good point above - talk to the priest about flash, too. Who cares if the you use flash when teh ceremony is over, or before it starts.</p>

<p>My last wedding I was asked to stay behind all the guests in the church and people sat WAY BACK.... a 17-55 would have been too short then, a 24-70 probably, too.</p>

<p>I had a 70-200 on my D300s, the 24-70 on a D700.</p>

<p> </p>

[bms]

<p>OH, and my advice is against the 85 1.4 - great for portraits (love mine), but it will take practice to shoot in the church in low light and you probably want the flexibility of a zoom.</p>

[leericks]

<p>I too am confused as to why you are so comitted to the 85 F1.4. You are renting a 70-200 F2.8. If you rent the AFS VR you will have the range of the 85 covered. With the stabilization you will be better off with the 70-200 particularly if you hand-hold. And, of course, you may well need the extra range. So I am in agreement with Benjamin on nixing the 85 F1.4. It is indeed a marvelous lens but</p>

<p>What you do not have is a wide angle lens. You need one. If not for the ceremony certainly, for the preparation shots and reception. This seems fairly obvious to me. Then there is 'real-life'. If you don't have a fast wide angle zoom lens you need one. I see your preference for primes and I do not share it. Unless you are going to peep at pixels they are inconvenient to say the least. High quality zooms like the Nikkor 17 - 55 or even better the 12 -24 F4 should be in every bag. </p>

<p>Anyway. You need to get wider, rent the long lens and spend your time practicing with them. Don't even think of picking up the 70-200 today and shoot a wedding with it tomorrow. You need to use it until you know what to expect from it. </p>

<p>Good luck with your wedding.</p>

[holger]

<p>I use to shoot in the church without flash (never ever), and I shoot the D300 (and D300s now). I would NOT get the 85 mm (as was said before, it's covered anyway by the 70-200), plus it simply is too long if you are allowed to the altar, and too short if you have to stay in the back of the church. And it is too long to hand hold in low light without VR or tripod, on DX that is.</p>

<p>I use the 17-55 f/2.8, and it's all I need. My second body sits in the back of the church with the something around 200 mm on a tripod, with my wife doing the long shots (but that's just to be sure we don't miss a scene, if I do the shooting alone with one camera only, it's me at the altar with the 17-55).</p>

<p>I would however consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with VC (the Tamron-VR). I have a copy here right now for testing, and I like it. Since people don't move too much in church, VC/VR will help a lot to overcome camera movement due to your own nervousness. And it will leave some cash in your wallet. </p>

<p>Don't change lenses during the event. Get a second body, if you want to use the 35 or 50 mm f/1.8, maybe just the D3100, that camera is a perfect little backup and wan't cause too much hassle. A second D300 feels good, but it's no fun carrying one around your neck or shoulder and shooting with the other D300. Just too heavy.</p>

<p>Whatever you get, do some testing before the real event. </p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>Why not the 85/1.8 and the money you save will get you a used 80-200 2.8. You only lose a half a stop and get back some valuable depth of field wide open.</p>

<p>And here one is not even allowed in the church. The photos are done after the ceremony, on the steps usually or out in the gardens. We might get some shots of the bride arriving, but again, outside only.</p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>OH, and my advice is against the 85 1.4 - great for portraits (love mine), but it will take practice to shoot in the church in low light and you probably want the flexibility of a zoom.</em></p>

<p>You all right guys, I really appreciate your help. The 70-200 f/2.8 will cover the 85 focal distance and will allow me to shoot from a distance in case I can not get closer to the altar. My thought about the 85 was that I could shoot at f/2.8, 1/160 ( perhaps ) and still get a sharp picture without flash. I don't know if the 70-200 used at the wide open will be as sharp as the 85 and I don't know if the 70-200 at f/4, will allow me to go up to ( perhaps ) 1/125 on this camera ( D300 ) using ISO 800-1600. Can you share what have been the max speed that you have got with f/2.8 indoor on the 70-200 ? Or using f/4 ?</p>

<p>Holger, my initial thought was to use the 17-55 and based on your experience, I will reconsider to use that lens. I think also will rent a second body and the 70-200 f/2.8 for the long shots. I will be alone shooting the wedding but I will have an assistant to help me carry my stuff. How good is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC in compare to the Nikon ? That lens was also in my mind as a third option and mostly because of the VC capability which allow me to stop down. I have not discard it at all but if you have some experience with it, can you share it ? </p>

<p>Lee, you have a good point. I will rent that lens ( 70-200 f/2.8 ) way before and practice with it.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, your feet. BUT none of this makes sense without a clear description of the lighting of the church at the time day wedding will occur and structure of the church. If there is plenty of light 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII <br>

You could also rent a D700 for 1-2 stops better low light performance or a D3s for 2-3 stops. </p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>As others have said, distance to subject is crucial as is your freedom to move. You have what you need at 35mm & 50mm, but are limited in the wide department. A 24mm of some description may be useful - any wider and perspective distortion may become an issue. The 70-200 you mention should be fine for longer lengths.</p>

<p>One issue you also need to consider is focusing speed. I had a Tamron 17-50mm on a D300 but the focusing was so twitchy, it was hopeless in fast moving situations. You might want to set up the D300 to enable exposure even if focus is not entirely locked - the last thing you want is the camera to 'refuse' to take an exposure because exposure is not locked even if you 'know' it is there or thereabouts. </p>

[rafael_s]

<p>I don't understand why you can't use a tripod. Is this by your own choice? It makes things a lot more difficult for yourself. I don't rely on high iso especially with weddings. If no flash, tripod is essential.</p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>I don't understand why you can't use a tripod. Is this by your own choice? It makes things a lot more difficult for yourself. I don't rely on high iso especially with weddings. If no flash, tripod is essential.</em></p>

<p>I totally agree with you Rafael but at the altar, tripod / monopod is not allow. My crucial moment will be at the time when they are exchanging rings, blessing, taking the Wine / Bread, etc, etc, ... those are being done at the altar and if I get closer enough, that will be nice but otherwise, from the distance and tele lens ( 70-200 mm f/2.8 ) I will be ok but they will be facing the altar and for me to take a front picture, I must stand at the altar behind the priest in a 45 / 30 degree angle in relation to them to be able to capture the moment. They won't allow me to have a tripod up there. Must be a handheld and I must increase the ISO or rent a camera like the D3 / D700 or D7000 to get more from the ISO perspective than the D300. </p>

<p>Steve, if by then is a sunny day, I will be ok because there will be plenty of light from the windows, so using the 17-55 / 24-70 and / or 70-200 f/2.8 will be the right choice, otherwise, I will mostly rely on the artificial light but regarding that, yes, the church is well illuminated. </p>

<p> </p>

[leericks]

<blockquote>

<p>My thought about the 85 was that I could shoot at f/2.8, 1/160 ( perhaps ) and still get a sharp picture without flash. I don't know if the 70-200 used at the wide open will be as sharp as the 85 and I don't know if the 70-200 at f/4, will allow me to go up to ( perhaps ) 1/125 on this camera ( D300 ) using ISO 800-1600. Can you share what have been the max speed that you have got with f/2.8 indoor on the 70-200 ? Or using f/4 ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You know the old rule. The best you can hand-hold is the recriprocal of the focal length of the lens. So the best you should consider is about 1/200 with the 85. I routinely hand-hold the 70-200 AFS VR at about 100th with good results. On occasion I have shot at 1/25th at 200 when I needed a dramatic PJ shot. And published the results. Your practice will show you what you can do. Remember you will be nervous. Who knows you might be able to shoot faster than you think anyway. <br>

As for sharpness. First consider your subject. You are not shooting bugs. You are shooting the bride and groom in a romantic setting. You probably do not need to see individual hairs in the grooms moustache. (Or, God forbid, the brides moustache.) So perhaps you are putting too much store on absolute sharpness. Nevertheless.....<br>

The 70-200 has legendary sharpness, even wide open. Here is what Hogan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Performance typically boils down to two things: autofocus speed and sharpness. So let's just cut to the chase: this is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, and the AF-S system works just as fast and as quietly on this lens as it does on any other.<br>

Target testing shows that not only is this lens sharper wide open than its predecessors, it has excellent corner sharpness and slightly better than expected sharpness at small apertures (where diffraction starts to take a bit of sharpness away). I can't say it often enough: this is a <em>sharp</em> lens. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What he said... If you have this lens you will not need the 85 F1.4. It will be a handicap as a matter of fact. So make sure you are covered on the wide end. Your 35 mm normal lens might not be wide enough. So get the wide one and the 70-200 and you will have the equipment to hit it out of the park. <br>

<br>

Please go to a church where you can practice. Hopefully the one in which you will shoot the wedding. It is not enough to talk to the priest. Once you have done that go to the spots where you will be shooting and make your shot list. It would be best if you could have someone with you to act as a model for your practice session. Please do not be offended if I ask you to think about your metering in advance. When you set up your shots keep in mind the brides white dress and maybe the grooms black tux. Or whatever. I know that if you have this practice session you will feel great about the wedding and it will pay huge dividends. The priest is not your enemy. He has done this a buch of times. Ask for his suggestions. Ask him how he would like you dressed so that you don't intrude. Make him part of the process. He could be your best friend. He just might move you upstage a bit. <br>

<br>

Great luck and PLEASE let us know how it goes. </p>