/////Lenses for Wedding Photographers
Lenses for Wedding Photographers2007-05-21T05:36:42+02:00

Explore Forums Discussions Camera Equipment SLR/DSLR Lenses Lenses for Wedding Photographers

Lenses for Wedding Photographers

  • Author
    Posts
  • Peter Betts
    Participant
    Post count: 1250

    This is mainly addressed to Nikon Users but Canonite Wedding Photographers and Lens Junkies can comment as I need advice.

    I have just gone on my own and will be doing Weddings as my bread and butter thing. My extreme passion is wild life so my knowledge and experience of what lenses are required in this field are okay. However I may need a more specialist Wedding lens???

    At the moment my wedding lenses I could use out of my arsenal are:

    Nikkor 12-24 f4 DX
    Nikkor 24-85 f3.5 – 5.6 G
    Nikkor 105 f2.8 VR Micro
    Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8

    I was thinking of a 1 lens solution as I only have 1 body the D200
    What are your thoughts for 1 of the following:

    Nikkor 18-200 VRII f5.6 DX (Perhaps not robust enough Consumer lens)
    Nikkor 17 -55 f2.8DX (Not enough RANGE?? but a more pro robust lens)

    Please comment

    Thanks

    Peter Betts

  • frb
    Participant
    Post count: 1327

    Not a Nikon user so not sure about the quality aspects but I think the 24-85 and 70-200 will cover all angles for the general stuff.

    I would however seriously consider a fast (f1.8 or 1.4) 85mm or 50mm prime lens for the portrait work

  • Noobie
    Participant
    Post count: 502

    Peter R Betts;51512 wrote:
    At the moment my wedding lenses I could use out of my arsenal are:

    Nikkor 12-24 f4 DX
    Nikkor 24-85 f3.5 – 5.6 G
    Nikkor 105 f2.8 VR Micro
    Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8

    I was thinking of a 1 lens solution as I only have 1 body the D200

    Peter, the lens arsenal you have is sufficient for wedding photography. I would, however, get the 24(28?)-70 f/2.8 to complement the 70-200, and dump the 24-85. A 1 body solution for wedding photography does not work. Get a second body, mount the 70-200 on one body and the 24-85 on another. The 12-24 you can use for pictures of the reception venue, church, etc. The macro (micro) you can use for small items like detail on the bride’s dress, rings, etc. It’s also a nice portrait lens!

    The second body is not just to give you versatility, it also acts as a backup in case something goes wrong with your other body. Remember, only an amateur goes to cover a wedding with 1 body. A wedding, unlike wildlife, is a once off event, there are no second takes. You cannot afford to have your shutter give up on you as the groom is about to kiss the bride.

    Good luck!!

  • kiffpics
    Participant
    Post count: 384

    I use 3 – 4 lenses.

    Nikon 28-70 F2.8
    Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR
    Nikon 10.5 F2.8 Fish eye

    Sigma 12-24

    My 28-70 is on the D200 and the 70-200 on the D2X.

    My wife uses the Nikon 18-200 VR on her camera. We have a back-up body with a 28-135 Sigma lens on as well

  • Jola
    Participant
    Post count: 3480

    I don’t do weddings, but if I did I would use :

    D200 & 17-55DX F2.8 General & groups
    D80 & 70-200VR F2.8 People pictures
    85 F1.4 for portraits (incl low light)
    105VR F2.8 Micro for close ups (ring, flowers, etc)

  • qbriggs
    Participant
    Post count: 1793

    I would add a Canon G7 to the list! As a standby, informal, inconspicuous camera, it is great. (It weighs less than my 17-85 IS lens!)

    Dream Lenses for a 1.6 cf camera (Canon) are
    17-40 f/4
    70-200 f/2.8
    50mm f/1.4

  • Cyril
    Participant
    Post count: 47

    Matatazela- I am not a wedding photographer, but wouldn’t you replace the 17-40 with a 17-55mm 2.8 IS? or is there a reason why you prefer the 17-40mm above this lens?

  • qbriggs
    Participant
    Post count: 1793

    capitalH;51600 wrote:
    Matatazela- I am not a wedding photographer, but wouldn’t you replace the 17-40 with a 17-55mm 2.8 IS? or is there a reason why you prefer the 17-40mm above this lens?

    You have a good point there…

    Price – R8,800 for the 17-40 vs R12, 400 for the 17-55 is quite a bit more, but you have me there, because this is a dream lens post! 😮

    Focal length, the 17-55 is definitely more useful, as is the aperture and IS.

    The main reason I didn’t put that down was because I have yet to even see one of these lenses. The L lenses are built very solidly, and if the 17-55 is anything near the quality, ten I would certainly consider one!

    While we are here: 16-35L f/2.8 is another that I would dearly love to test drive…

  • Crunchie007
    Participant
    Post count: 376

    Peter, the 17-55 f2.8 and your 70-200 f2.8 cover most of the focal length range you will need, and both are pro lenses. If you can live with the relatively few shortcomings of the 18-200 (not as sharp, slower f-stop, consumer lens vs pro build quality, zoom creep) and do not wish to spend the +-R 30k for the two pro lenses, it should do the job adequately. The only advantages I can think of, are the lower cost and no need to change lenses all the time.

    I would only consider adding the 50mm f1.4 AF-D lens to the collection. It is a super fast, sharp lens that works for both flash/studio and available-light portraits at relatively low cost.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.Log In

People Who Like Thisx

Loading...