Your workhorse lenses Cropped Sensor

[jenkins]

<p>If you had to list the lenses you use most for Wedding Photography what would they be?</p>

<p>I have a Nikon D7000 so my guess would be the 17-55 F2.8, is there any point of me buying any other zooms for the format I use?</p>

<p>I am not about to enter Wedding Photography just yet but I do wonder about this?</p>

[pbalko]

<p>Canon here but, yep, the 17-55 F2.8 usually stays on one body and the 85 1.8 stays on the other. I don't take many shots with the 70-200 2.8 IS, but I love the shots I get with it.</p>

[aura_jane]

I would have to second everything Phil

has said. The exact same lenses for

me as well. Also on a canon.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I would get VR...meaning tamron or sigma instead of the mentioned nikon.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>I have dabbled in wedding photography, but never really been a wide angle person. I love wide angles, don't get me wrong, but personally, I'm a telephoto kind of guy at weddings. For this reason my favorite lenses are either the 85mm F/1.4 or the 70-200. I'm actually a big fan of the 70-200 because of its reach, I can capture emotions from a distance. None the less my personal favorite at a wedding is the 200mm F/2.0. Call me crazy, but its my favorite wedding lens, and yes, in case you are wondering, I have shot an entire wedding as the primary and only shooter with the 200mm F/2 on one body and a 50mm F/4 on another. Naturally wide angles come in handy as a necessity for group shots and other photographic opportunities, but for me, give me a fast tele and you'll make my day at a wedding.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Depending on how you work (of course), and the circumstances, a 17-55/2.8 may very well be enough for the entire wedding. </p>

<p>Personally, I like having a more comprehensive focal line up, but for many weddings I've shot, I could easily have made it through the entire day on just a 28-90mm range. That said, many of my best shots are in the 70-200mm (45-125mm crop) range, and in the 16-35mm (10-24mm crop) crop. <br>

I think that putting a lens on that you have to work to make creative decisions look good with expands your capabilities. It certainly has with me. </p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>A 17-55/2.8 is a good basic zoom for wedding work. If you're shooting only a hand full of weddings, then Tamron or Sigma are fine. However, if it's your primary lens and you're shooting lots of events, then go with the Nikon. I have the Nikon and other focal length range 3rd party zooms and they are not built the same. The Nikon is a true pro grade lens and will hold up better.</p>

[marcsaint]

<p>My main lens is an oldish Nikon 18-70 f/3.5 kit lens that works well, though it did bind up once and had to be fixed. Surprisingly sharp for a kit lens and I suppose I should join the f/2.8 crowd but I just can't come up with the $$$.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>is there any point of me buying any other zooms for the format I use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having decided upon a Main Working Zoom, I would prioritize a few Fast Primes over another Zoom.<br>

For a Kit solely using APS-C cameras my initial thoughts would be something like: a 24/1.4 and a 50/1.4, OR a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.8 as two Prime Pairs I would consider, depending upon the style of Photography and the general expected physical nature of the shooting environs.</p>

<p>However, the intrinsic aspect of the APS-C’s “crop” is that in terms of Wide Primes it is limited: so therefore due consideration would be for a second zoom in the area of 10 to 20ish – and that range is certainly handy and more handy for some than other shooting styles. </p>

<p>WW<br>

(PS like your Bio Photo . . . and your Portfolio has changed markedly – good stuff!)</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Old 1980s Tamron SP 28-80 3.5/4.3 manual focus on one body, followed by 85 f1.8 AF, 50 f1.4 AF-D, or my trusty 180mm AF-D f 2.8 on another body. My other camera is a Hasselblad 503CW with dedicated D flash, or Lumedyne and 50mm CF-fle lens and a few rolls of 120 film.</p>

[ejder]

<p>Back in my day of crop cameras my mainstays were Tamron 28-75 (later Canon 24-70), 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It expanded to include 135 f/2, 70-200 f/2.8 IS...then I moved to full frame and went to 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and expanded more from there. </p>

[jenkins]

<p>There is a small part of me that wishes he had waited for a full frame, but i am very happy with my Nikon D7000. I know at some stage I will have to take the plunge on the 70-200mm F2.8, but I have read of people not using it very often which seems a little odd as it is such an investment.</p>

<p>William wouldn't you need more reach with the primes you mentioned, I have a couple of primes which I love, but in a Wedding situation I am not sure I would want the constant switching. BTW thanks for the words on my pictures you were a great help to me in the learning days, not that we ever stop ;-)</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>It really depends Simon, if I have unlimited room, am plenty comfortable on time and have some control of the environment, I would prefer to shoot either my 85mm F/1.4 or my 200mm Macro (yes especially for portraits, especially for full body shots, space permitting). I love the compression and for me my creativity is heighten when I'm limited to a prime. Not that the 70-200 isn't a fantastic lens. If I'm shooting anything that moves or if I'm in an environment where I have limited control (weddings being a perfect example), then the flexibility a 70-200 offers is a must. So depending on what kind of jobs I'm getting, the 70-200 maybe a workhorse or it maybe a lazy lens in the bag. Yes its a sizable investment, but if you owned a 400mm F/2.8, would you pull it out all of the time? Its 4 times the investment of the 70-200, but it also happens to be 10lbs and like 2 feet long. You pull it out for the specific uses for which it was made, i.e. sports & wildlife. (Unless of course a friend invites you over to try it out, and its your first time seeing one, then you immediately put it on and begin to shoot everything in sight for about 2 minutes, and then you tell your friend that you will need to have a hot bath drawn to soak your very sore arms in ;) It is somewhat similar with the 70-200, when you need range with speed, VR and\or fast AF, you put the 70-200 on your camera. When you don't most photographers own something in that range that is more convenient.</p>

[ejder]

<p>Passive thought....I think I was a better photographer when I only had a few lenses. Now I have every focal range from 16mm through 200mm, every Canon L prime lens from 24mm through 135mm (except 100L macro)...and I feel like I am exponentially worse at my job now than when I just had 35 and 85mm as my mainstays.<br>

No rush on full frame, it adds some additional flexibility with focal lengths and gives a more "Natural" 35mm look and feel, but not necessary...</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You definitely need a 70-200 -- many churches will require the photographer to remain all the way in the back or up in the balcony shooting without flash during the actual ceremony. If you want to get the ceremony you need a fast, long lens. Also your 17-55 is too short for portraits, and portraits are a key part of weddings. Even though a 55 is about 70-80 on a crop camera you still need an actual focal length of around 85 to drop backgrounds out of focus, aka, bokeh.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't you need more reach with the primes you mentioned, I have a couple of primes which I love, but in a Wedding situation I am not sure I would want the constant switching.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clarity of what I meant: having a Standard Zoom as my workhorse I would NEXT buy Two Primes as I would get more use from them than another zoom.</p>

<p>On the matter of needing a 70 to 200 – yes some Churches require the Photographer standing at the back of the Church – that is sometimes Denominational, sometimes at the whim of the Boss of the venue and sometimes area specific and also what FL required depends upon the length of the venue – I have not often been relegated to the rear of the Church or Venue and when I have certainly I have used even a 300mm lens (on FF) so that is about the full 200mm of a 70 to 200 on an APS-C Camera.</p>

<p>But I rarely used a 70 to 200 ever at a Wedding because I tend to work close; in most cases the Churches and venues allowed that for a long shot from the rear of the Church I usually had a wider view.</p>

<p>Also it is important understand why one might buy a 70 to 200 (especially for an APS-C) as it is silly to buy it for a few shots only each Wedding and then use it only as a 200mm telephoto.</p>

<p>Also having two working cameras means fewer lens changes<br>

WW </p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>On cropped bodies, I predominantly use 3. The 50. the 17-55 and the 10-24.</p>

<p>I sometimes use the longer Tammy 70-300VC and the 70-200/2.8 Nik. when shooting from back of a larger church or when looking for more compression than a 50 allows.</p>

<p>Most used FL's (within the zoom) at a 35mm equiv. are: 24 and 75.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>The equivalent of 50mm lens, for my Olympus this is 25mm lens. </p>