Need low light lens for D5100

[crow0806]

<p>My son is getting married in December in northern California in the redwoods. It's likely to be raining or at least dark and cloudy. They may be forced to use a large tent in the woods. I have a D5100 with a Tamron 18-270mm lens and only the on-camera flash. I'm taking the photos for my own use and will share them with whoever would like to see them, but I am not the "Wedding Phographer." Will the Tamron 18-270 be adequate with the flash? What relatively fast prime lens (without bankrupting me) would help?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>35/1.8.</p>

[crow0806]

<p>Thanks Eric. I suspected as much.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>The 28/1.8 is what, $600? But the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are terrific lenses and much more affordable. </p>

<p>I just got the 16-85mm with Vr and with the VR you can hold the camera successfully in pretty low light situations. </p>

<p>I just saw a terrific diffuser for on-camera flashes. They had the photographers at the Times Square Toys R Us using them -- here it is. The Gary Fong Puffer pop-up flash diffuser. Search that phrase. They're $17.99 at B&H. It will make a huge difference in quality if you're using the on camera flash.

[stank]

<p>Have a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 HSM OS. It has pretty decent low light capability with the combination of fairly wide aperture and image stabilization.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Another vote for sigma 17-70mm OS. It's a great range, and add the wider end it is 2.8. I have a d5100 and am not afraid to dial ISO up to ISO 3200. I don't think you'll have a problem if the wedding is during daylight.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[andylynn]

<p>This is for a single event? Get a 35/1.8 because you're going to love it anyway, and rent something for the wedding. I was helping a friend out with a similar question and a set of f/2.8 zooms, if you were a bit carefule about the choices, on borrowlenses.com was under $100 a week. I think that was for a Tamron 17-50 VC and a Sigma 50-150.</p>

<p>The Sigma 17-70 is also very good. Used to have the previous version on a D90. Very sharp lens, and a stop faster than the Nikon kit lenses.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>Will the Tamron 18-270 be adequate with the flash?"</em> Yes, actually, it will.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>but I am not the "Wedding Phographer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Will there be a professional wedding photographer capturing this event?</li>

<li>Do you expect high-quality results?</li>

</ol>

<p>If there will be an official photographer for the events, I would say just rely on that person to capture the key images and hopefully that is a photographer who can produce high-quality results. As the father of the groom, the OP can still capture some images during the event but IMO he is better off serving in the capacity as the father of the groom. Interfering with the official pro may cause some unnecessary problems.</p>

<p>If the expectation that most of the important images will come from the OP, I would suggest first of all avoid using the pop-up flash as a significant source of light. That kind of frontal, direct flash will unlikely lead to great results, and that pop-up flash has very limited flash power so that it is not effective from farther away.</p>

<p>If the expection is that the OP will produce important images, I would get (not necessarily purchase; rental is a possibility) one or two faster lenses as suggested above and maybe a stronger flash such as SB-700 or SB-910.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>I use the 35/1.8 more than either of the two zooms with a D3100. It is a great lens.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I'd suggest you get a couple of flash units (buy or rent) like the SB-700. Learn to use the flash off camera for best effect. The 18-270 will be OK for images as long as the scene is well lit with natural light or flash.<br>

Using the on-camera flash is likely to give poor results.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>35 f/1.8, and a SB700.....Both will continue to be useful afterwards too, certainly not one-time investments.<br>

But frankly, I would leave the camera at home alltogether at the wedding day of your own child. At max, ask a more remote family member or friend with some photographic skills to make a couple of photos with your camera (and then still the same lens/flash advice would apply).</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I was thinking almost exactly like Wouter. 35mm f1.8 and get a decent external flash, you'll use it many more times in the

future for other things. As for bringing a camera along, why not, just have fun, and if that's what you enjoy, do it!

[crow0806]

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. I doubt my son has the $ for a wedding photographer so I may be the primary photographer by default. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Weddings are fast and tricky. I would not suggest you try to learn how to use off-camera flash at a wedding. A used SB-600 will work fine on the camera as fill flash. An f2.8 zoom will give you lots of optiions in dim light coupled with a high ISO setting. Have some formal portraits taken at a JC Penny or Walmart type studio, where they will at least have some nice photos they can frame.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>I agree with Shun. Let someone else do it. Being Dad is your job on a special day.</p>

<p>If you insist, since it is a one time event, consider RENTING a pro level zoom. A 2.8 aperture will be bright enough with higher ISO when needed (can't remember if your camera has auto-ISO, which is great and used by pros all the time).</p>

<p>And, since it a one time event, you are OJT for learning. So, you need an advance plan, cooperation from the main players too. Significant time diverted from festivities. Who will take pictures of YOU and the couple, etc., family portraits since not all family members come together at one time. Do a little reading, and then write down the list shots, players, places, and schedule for all of the above.</p>

<p>Is there no other photog in the family or your friends?</p>

[crow0806]

<p>My son in Alaska is coming and he graduated from Colorado Mountain College photography school as did his wife. She can't come but my son will be able to fill in for me when necessary. There will probably be others that can fill in as well.<br>

With all the advice I'm sure I'll be able to find equipment that will work well. I like the idea of them going to a photo studio for some more formal shots.</p>

[adam_weaver]

<p>How about a 17-50 2.8 Tamron VC and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 hsm along w/ a Nikon ttl flash? You can rent them at the same time for $100 all-in at lensrentals. I've heard the Vc is not as sharp as the non-vc (blah blah) but if you're in the shaded woods the VC could get you out of jail. Maybe the 85 is too long and you could take a 50mm f/1.8 G. I just got that lens and it's really good. If you end up in a tent you can bounce a flash off the ceiling (w/ a card on the back of the flash for fill) in ttl mode and you'll probably do great. </p>

[grh]

<p>Second the rental idea. An f/2.8 lens for 3 days is really minimal, and you can rent a flash as well. Point the flash up, not forward, or get a small softbox/diffuser for it, at the very least.<br>

That said, The Graslon Spark works quite well and is handy enough in a pinch. I hear too many unsatisfied comments about the Puffer, buy YMMV.<br>

You may find that your D5100 with a 2.8 or faster lens and high ISO (2000 or more) will work well with ambient light, although some PP would be required (i.e. you'd have to underexpose and adjust after the fact). Sometimes that's preferable to any flash.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I doubt that a tiny little diffuser like the Fong "puffer" will make the slightest bit of difference to the quality of light from a popup flash. Been there, done that, seen it makes almost no difference for myself. What it will do is to make an already quite feeble B-I flash even weaker, so that it won't even reach 8 ft without pumping up the ISO of the camera.<br>

In any case you could get exactly the same result as that fong thing by simply taping a strip of bubble wrap plastic loosely in front of the flash. Cost - about 10c instead of an overpriced $18.</p>

<p>The only real use for such a tiny diffuser is to bring the light forward for macro work. This can prevent the flash being obscured by the lens itself.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>My View:</p>

<p>Leave it to the official photographer. There is nothing worse than a proud dad duplicating (poorly) what is going to be done. In fact, it would be a major distraction. Just be the dad and participate. <br>

This sort of thing is why I don't do weddings anymore. When I did I had a clause in the contract that prohibited a guest running around with another camera, taking happy snaps and disturbing everyone.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I find these "just be the father at the wedding" admonitions repugnant. What is that, the father at the wedding? He didn't ask for our advice on social niceties and comportment. We don't live in a nation of shared social values in any case. If the man wants to take pictures then he should take pictures. He asked for technical advice and he's getting it. He should weigh it. Myself, I think renting giant f/2.8 zooms and speedlights is going overboard. For the Nikon a great investment is an SB-400 which is only $115 and which does a great job in most circumstances, including what you'll face at the wedding. With a flash, your lens is FINE. If you choose also to pick up a 35/1.8 you will never regret it, it's one of the great Nikon lenses ever. </p>

<p>The vast majority of "professional" wedding photographs are technically adequate but grotesquely fake, sentimental, and clichéd. If he wants to take pictures from his perspective why is anyone suggesting otherwise? What is this just pay the check smile and shut up bit? </p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>It all comes down to a memorable day and hopefully some nice photos to help remember the day by. You wrote that you were not sure if your son had booked a professional photographer and that you may have to be just that. Ask the merry couple about this since it is good to know.</p>

<p>If you are to cover the event alone; as already mentioned a 35/1.8 and a SB-700 (or a used SB-800) would be of great help.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Vince, your comment is refreshing and very well articulated. Many of the answers go some way beyond what was asked. But surely 'repugnant' is too harsh. It is certainly pertinent to consider the possibility of using a pro. As for shared values; don't we all still believe in mom (and pop) and apple pie?</p>

[adam_weaver]

<p>The OP states that he doubted his son would be able to afford a Pro. So these "leave it to the pro" recommendations are... hmmmm. That doesn't mean he "can't just be the dad," but it changes things for sure. </p>