Destination Wedding - Lens help, please?

[carrie_sakaki]

<p>Hello, After reading the Nikon forums for nearly 8 months now, I'm ready to post a question. My sister is getting married in the Mayan Riviera in December 2011 and has asked me to be the main photographer. By no means am I a professional, but I manage enough quality shots that my services are sometimes requested. Her wedding will be special but still very low key with only 30 people including the bride & groom, bridal party, close friends and family.<br>

My partner and I will join forces so we can get shots of both my sister and the groom preparing. My question is which lenses do we take and which one should I purchase?<br>

Here's what we have,<br>

He's got a D70 and I a D90. We've got a Nikkor 18 - 105 (my kit lens), Sigma 10 - 20, Nikkor 85mm 1.8, Sigma 70 - 300 and a Tamron 28 - 80 (his kit lens). <br>

I've had my eye on the 24 - 120 f4 nikkor ed vr or the 18 - 270 Tamron. I'm looking to spend up to $1,200 (it's my turn to splurge and I'm choosing new glass over jewellery!).<br>

We will be taking our tripod and flash, although flash photography has never been my forte.<br>

I'm hoping that whatever lens I purchase will compliment what I usually do which is taking photos of our teenaged sons while playing either hockey or soccer and alot of informal, candid shots of people (in the moment, not formal).<br>

Thanks in advance for your help!<br>

~ Carrie-Ann</p>

[rsands]

<p>A lens that a lot of people (including me) are fond of is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It gives you a nice lens for the kind of shots you spend a lot of time on, and will work well for the wedding up to and including portraits. Your 70-300 will do well if you want closeups of faces during the ceremony itself.<br>

If the after-ceremony pix are indoors, your 85 isn't going to cut it. I just bought a 35/1.8 that I can't stop admiring. Wish I had had it for a destination wedding I was at not very long ago. Would have been great for the late night indoor shots.<br>

I don't have a lot of the lenses that you have, but it would appear that the 18-270 is overlapping a lot of what you already have, in high quality lenses. </p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>I'd look for a clean used Nikkor 17-55/2.8 AF-S, and bring the 85/1.8. And a Speedlight, of course.</p>

<p>And, a tan Domke F5-XB bag to work out of.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for $1,200 i would look for a tamron 17-50/2.8 and a sigma 50-150/2.8. you need fast zooms to do weddings. those two and the 85 and possibly the 10-20, along with a couple of speedlights, should be all you need.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>For $25 or so, get a book on flash photography and learn how to take flash pictures that look like they were shot with natural lighting. And save $1175.</p>

<p>But if you are going to go for the lens anyway, Nikon's 17-55mm (used around $900) is the way to go. If not, Nikon's 35mm f1.8 for $200 and/or Nikon's new 50mm f1.8 AF-S would be a great one to add to what you already have and still save you some money and give you great results.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>+ 1 on the Tamron - it can be had for under $500 and is a good lens for a serious amateur or even a pro.</p>

<p>You might consider a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 also - you could do both for under or right at your budget.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>+1 for Eric's advice. 17-50 from Tamron and 50-150 from Sigma are a killer combo for an affordable cost.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The most useful lens for wedding photography should be something like a 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX or 17-55mm/f2.8 for DX, followed by a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S with VR.</p>

<p>If you are willing to buy Tamron and/or Sigma lenses, Eric Arnold's suggestions are good as they are most of the time (but certainly not all the time :-) ):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for $1,200 i would look for a tamron 17-50/2.8 and a sigma 50-150/2.8. you need fast zooms to do weddings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, if you are not a regular wedding photographer, the OP needs to decide whether those lenses make sense in the longer term, after the sister's wedding. In case they are not as useful later on, are you going to sell them? Sometimes it is more difficult to sell used 3rd-party lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think the Tamron 17-50 and a tele f2.8 zoom would take care of maybe all of what you have to shoot. But be careful. Don't miss anything. Shooting weddings for free for friends or family can be a recipe for disaster, but it sounds like it's a destination wedding, so that's a little different.</p>

<p>A macro is good for ring shots and stuff like that, too.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use the Tamron 17-50 VC and Sigma 50-150 with two D300s bodies for my pro work doing events and concerts, they are a great combination. The 17-50 is a good walk around for all kind of uses. The Sigma is being replaced with an optical stabilized model.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>shun and elliot, a used 17-55 would pretty much eat up carrie's entire budget ($900 was the used price about two years ago; post-tsunami, it's hard to find one for under $1100), and a used 24-70 is completely out of her budget. therefore, the tamron is the way to go. a new version of the non-VC model is only about $450 new. that would leave about $750, which is enough to get a used 50-150 too (or a new one, if you can find one).</p>

<p>in my experience, a 2-lens 2.8 set up covering 17-150 in DX is enough to handle 85-90% of most conceivable photo opps, and as a bonus, both of those lenses are compact enough for travel. the 17-50 is one of the most versatile DX lenses out there--its great for street, landscape, and event shooting, and because of the small size, it doesnt get heavy if you're carrying around for hours.</p>

<p>having shot with both lenses extensively on DX before switching to FX and the 24-70/70-200, i can say the IQ differences are basically incremental. sure, the pro nikkors are better, especially in build quality, but not so much that they can completely justify the substantial cost differential for amateur or semi-pro shooters. i was actually surprised in comparing the 70-200 VRII with the 50-150 how close those lenses are in IQ. and the 17-50 may be sharper at 2.8 than the 17-55 (which, it must be said, is faster to focus and does have a better build).</p>

<p>i can't see where it would not be useful for a serious photographer to have two 2.8 zooms covering wide to telephoto ranges, especially considering the current glass selection. the 10-20 and 85 are keepers, and the 18-105 VR has a decent range, but the 28-80 and 70-300 are the weak links in the kit.</p>

<p>you may not get a whole lot to replace them--low-end 3rd party glass isn't as good as tamron's SP and sigma's EX line--but i would definitely upgrade those two. as far as depreciation on the 17-50 and 50-150, it's less than the depreciation, statistically-speaking on a new 17-55, which loses almost 1/3rd of its value the minute you buy it, compared to about 20-25% for the others. if you're buying that glass used, you can basically sell it for what you paid for it--or even more. IMO the now-discontinued 50-150 II is a classic and could actually go up in resale value. the tamron's resale price will probably stay at the $350-$375 range since they're still being made, so no shortage of supply.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, I hope you and everybody else realize that I was merely referring to those zoom ranges in generic terms:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The most useful lens for wedding photography should be something like a 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX or 17-55mm/f2.8 for DX, followed by a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S with VR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not specify the Nikon version of the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX AF-S. It could be a 3rd-party 18-50mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>Given that the OP apparently has only one camera body for herself, whether she is better off with just one 17-55mm/f2.8 or with the combo of that and a longer zoom is debateable. Since I have no clue about the wedding venue and setting, I won't comment on that as I have no idea whether a longer zoom is useful in this particular situation. I have used my 200-400mm/f4 inside a church and found it useful in that case; most profession wedding photographers don't even have a long lens like that.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Eric, the lens is still available used for $1000. I found several for $900 used a couple of weeks ago although they have since been sold. There is a reason it sells for more than 3rd party lenses. And there are several reasons why it is worth more than 3rd party lenses.</p>

[ianivey]

<p>+1 on Eric's advice. The Tamron 17-50 is brilliant, especially for the money, and the VC version is worth the extra few bucks for wedding and other low-light work (VC doesn't kill subject movement, but it's wonderful for camera shake). </p>

<p>Tokina produced a 50-135, which is also apparently very good, and is available on ebay. </p>

[carrie_sakaki]

<p>Thank you for all of the replies. You've saved me from possibly making a regrettable purchase had I not come to this forum. I do not see any references to the lenses I had chosen. <br>

I'm off to do some research to see what I can find. This should be my sister's <em>last</em> wedding (therefore my one and only) so my purchase has to fit the best of both worlds.<br>

I am also going to buy a book on flash since it intimidates me so.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

~ Carrie-Ann</p>

[elliot1]

<p>This will get you started...</p>

<p><a href="http://dptnt.com/2009/09/bounce-flash-tips/">http://dptnt.com/2009/09/bounce-flash-tips/</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should also point out that while a lot of us prefer something like a 24-70mm/f2.8 zoom (17-55mm/f2.8 for DX) for wedding photography, by no means there is consensus on that. Some wedding photographers prefer to use fixed-focal-length lenses, e.g. one 35mm and one 85mm. It is all about the photographer's preference; as long as he/she can produce results the customers (e.g. bride and groom, mother of the bride, etc.) are happy with; that it is that matters.</p>

<p>For those who would like to learn more about wedding photography, we have some good resources on photo.net: <a href="../learn/wedding/">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/</a></p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>Carrie<br>

Take the time to learn to use a flash. My guess is unless the entire wedding will be outdoors during the day, there will be MANY shots that will not have enough light to shoot "available light." So, to get a shot you have to use a flash.<br>

You should use a flash bracket to put the flash above the lens. It does not have to be an EXPENSIVE bracket, but a decent one. For travel, a Stroboframe "flash flip" or a Custom Brackets "CB Junior"or a Demb flash bracket (http://www.dembflashproducts.com/bracket/). They would also pack well in the suitcase. You will also need a sync cord to connect the camera to the flash.<br>

Next learn to use "bounce flash." With the digital cameras and TTL flashes, it is not as difficult as it used to be in the film days. If the walls/ceiling is not colored I will bounce my flash off the ceiling or walls as much as I can.<br>

This is a good site to learn some of what I'm talking about<br>

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/<br>

The "problem" is a Nikon flash will be several hundred dollars. And that will cut into your lens budget. And you want a NIKON flash for the TTL communication between the camera and the flash.</p>

<p>Gud Luk</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>+1 per Eric A. on the sigma and tamron though the sigma might be hard to find these days. </p>

[Two23]

<p>You need to practice practice practice flash until you are an expert with it. Shoot it at least once day for the two months. Flash use is far more important than a lens, especially if outdoors.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>elliot, i dont want to get into another 17-55 vs. 17-50 debate here. they're both good lenses. we can agree to say they both have carved out followings, yes? sure the resale value of the 17-55 is higher--that's because the initial cost is more than 300% greater. fyi, i haven't seen a 17-55 on my local CL for less that $1100 recently. used prices start at $1099 on amazon, too. and KEH is currently out. regardless, i know what lens i'd rather travel with.</p>

<p>the OP's situation is basically she has a limited budget, so the 17-55 might be out of the ballpark. maybe a non-stabilized 70-300 can cut it for a daytime ceremony outdoors, maybe not. in any event, i'd rather have both a 2.8 wide-mid zoom and a 2.8 telezoom than just a 2.8 wide-mid zoom. the tokina 50-135 would also be a good choice, and it should be a bit cheaper than the 50-150. i believe the sigma has a bit faster AF.</p>

<p>gary has excellent advice too on the bracket /flash and off-camera cord. the best bet here might be a lightly used sb-600, which is at least $200. so i'd figure that into the budget too.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"KEH is currently out"</em> KEH, my favorite supplier for high quality low cost used lenses at bargain prices has four used 17-55mm lenses for sale starting and $999 on the low end to $1219 on the high end. Since the wedding is not until December, she has plenty of time to find a bargain price on a low mileage lens.</p>

<p>Carrie, another option for you is to rent the lens.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>One of my favorites portret lens is 85/1,8. With the D70 will make a wonderfull pair. Use the other body (D90) with your choice zoom. Good luck !</p><div></div>

[carrie_sakaki]

<p>So much food for thought and finding a Sigma 50 - 150/2.8 is as difficult as mentioned. So if I splurged (<em>spending way more on the lens than the trip itself!)</em>, would the 17-55 be the one to get? Keep in mind that this will be my one and only wedding, so in between and after it will be the boys sports and friends as usual. A big debate is unnecessary - layman's terms, if you don't mind. Also, more than likely, I will not resell.<br>

Oh how I would love to rent! However, in this mid-sized BC town there is nowhere to do so. If the CD$ goes up, I could buy american, but if not taxes, shipping and duty will add a rather significant amount to the cost. <br>

Paul, Eric, beautiful shots.<br>

Thanks again and Happy Canada Day!</p>

[cherubinphotography]

<p>I shoot about 20 weddings per year and I have used both the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 50-150. The Tamron was capable of some sharp images but I sold it because it often hunted for focus in low light. (I also had to send it back to Tamron for repair only after 3 weeks due to poor communication with my D300). I now use the Nikon 17-55 and still use the Sigma 50-150. The Sigma is light and quick to focus. I may still sell it though just to get some additional focal length....</p>