james hoang

TN wrote: "I used to carry every lens I owned to weddings, but I always end up using only those two lenses mentioned above"

 

This is very true.

 

I think many wedding photogs started out this way until we become experienced enough to know that "the best lens is always the lens on your camera" (somebody holds the rights to that phrase) and that the older you get the heavier the lenses becomes. :-)

If I had your lenses, I think this is how I would make use of them and I would use 2 bodies (one SB800 can be used on whichever bodies needs it) :<P>

 

a) Getting ready - 17-55mm, 24mm <BR>

b) Processional/recessional - same as (a) with maybe 55-200mm if I absolutely need it.<BR>

c) Ceremony - same as (b)<BR>

d) Altar formals - 17-55mm<BR>

e) Outdoor formals - same as (d)<BR>

f) Reception - same as (a) - shutter drag<BR>

g) Dancing - same as (a) - shutter drag<P>

 

Anything else is unnecessary weight and one needs to move fast. <P>

 

PS. I use the Sigma 30mm because I dont have the 24mm. I have 2 D200's which I try very hard not to push above ISO800 due to noise (use more flash).<P>

 

Good luck.

I have used both at weddings and can say that I see no significant IQ differences worth mentioning. Both version produces fantastic images. As for VR, I tried never to put myself in a situations where I was depending on VR to capture sharp images so VR was not important to me. Not to say that it always works out as planned but I avoid such situations as much as possible. What I found that was invaluable for me was the AF-S. AF speed is very important to me. I ended up with the 80-200mm AF-S lens and loved it. Get the 70-200mm just for AF-S if you can.

Mary, I vote to let the last few entries in. They're all great!

Thanks for the note Mary. Here is my attempt once more:<div></div>

Another try at the photo:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=34259084

I'm a newbie to the forums and want to say a Happy New Year to all! A fovorite of mine:

A photographer advertised for an assistant recently and I expressed my interest. She wanted an assistant on a WFH basis. I withdrew my name from consideration because of that. Money was not an issue to me as being able to keep my work for future references.

 

So what about a wedding photographer pitching themselves to potential clients as ones who keep their client's photos in highest regards and with the highest of confidence. In other words, the clients will not have to worry about their wedding photos being published anywhere not authorized by the clients. And in order to secure this, they guaranttee their clients that any one who works for them shall also follow the same strict high standards. Would this type of photography service be desireable with high-profile clients as well as everyday couples?

 

Just wanted to throw that thought out for discussion.

 

I also want to mention that it is very refressing to see many of you believe in allowing assistants to build their portfolio. To me, William said it best: "I'd rather develop a friend out of a potential pro who will someday make referrals to me." Thank-you William for those words.

I've had experience with shooting situations without flash like in a church and even a f2.8 lens would be borderline. If lighting is dim then you'd be better off with a fast prime lens like one of these: 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 35mm f2, 85mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4. I've listed it in the order of lowest to highest price (new). The 50mm f1.8 is around $100 new at B&H with the 85mm f1.4 at $1K. Also, please keep in mind I shoot digital so it may be different. Good luck in your decision.

How about: "TifTar Photography" or "TarTif". You both can fight about who's name comes first.

My very first post!

 

I've worked a couple of weddings using these 2 lens combo on 2 camera bodies and it worked fairly well. The 70-200mm is a great lens. Sharp, beautiful IQ and the reach is great for portrait and candids. BUT, it is a big and heavy lens. You'll always notice its there and always tend to be careful trying not to hit something and someone with it. With that said, the 17-55mm still got used for about 85% of my shots. I originally got the 70-200mm for the VR and inside church shots (low light) but f2.8 is still f2.8 and in many situations, even this great lens w/ VR couldn't give me the stops I needed. So I often reverted to my 50mm f/1.4 for these situations. Thats my take on the 70-200mm VR.

 

Now to add an option to your list of lens to get. I have since got the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens and it is beautiful. Not AF-S so focusing is slow and shorter range but the images I get from it are absolutely incredible (magical to be more precise) and well worth the trade-off. It's also smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm which is a real plus when working an 8 hour event and having 2 cameras hanging from your neck. The 17-55mm and 85mm is now my two lens combo. The 17-55mm is still used for most of everything (cake cutting, dance floor etc) but the 85mm is excellent for portraits and candid work.

 

I have sold my 70-200mm and currently looking for the 80-200mm to keep on the side for those rare occassions where a longer lens is needed.

 

Hope this helps you in making your decision.