Nikon Wedding and Portrait lenses

RFP

I am moving from amateur to professional work--mostly engagement, wedding, and portrait work.

I have a Nikon D700 and D70, SB800 flash, 70-300mm Nikkor, 50mm Nikkor, and 35-70mm basic DX lens.

I am looking to purchase a professional quality FX wide angle or wide angle zoom. I am considering the 16-35mm VR or the 14-24mm. Does anyone have feedback on these or other options? I am also looking for a good tripod and some strobe lights and stands. (I know, its a long list). If anyone knows of a good starter studio light set, please let me know.

If you want to check out my gallery, I'm at www.rachaelfosterphoto.com

I appreciate general feedback on my images too.

Thanks everyone!

RFP

bump

Qarik

The 14-24mm is the best wide angle ever made. Get it if you can afford it.

You have some lovely shots on your site...but you need some variety. Closeups, headhsots, rings, full length, wide angle..etc

RFP

Qarik wrote: »

The 14-24mm is the best wide angle ever made. Get it if you can afford it.

You have some lovely shots on your site...but you need some variety. Closeups, headhsots, rings, full length, wide angle..etc

Thanks for the encouragement and feedback. I may spring for the 14-24mm. On the rings and other details, do you think I need a macro? None of my current lenses really produce the kind of thing I've seen other photographers do with rings. Is there a cheaper option for macro since its a specialty lens?

holzphoto

macro helps on rings and close up details.

i don't shoot nikon, but the 14-24 2.8 is the best wide angle zoom ever made as stated by qarik.

Qarik

RFP wrote: »

Thanks for the encouragement and feedback. I may spring for the 14-24mm. On the rings and other details, do you think I need a macro? None of my current lenses really produce the kind of thing I've seen other photographers do with rings. Is there a cheaper option for macro since its a specialty lens?

yes, buy some kenko extension tubes and use them with your 50mm.

sellis

If your 50mm has a 52mm filter ring, I can send you some close-focus filters. They're not the greatest, I think one set I have is Quantaray and I'm not sure about the other set. I came across them when I was cleaning stuff out and almost threw them away because I haven't used them in ten years or more. PM me your address if you're interested, it could at least be a way to get some decent closeups until you can justify a macro lens.

I have and LOVE the 14-24 2.8 lens, but it's not a workhorse kind of lens. I might use it for 10-15% of my final choices for a wedding gallery IF THAT MANY. I'll pop it on for a shot of the ceremony from the back and during the reception to try to get a wider view of a crowded dance floor. I RARELY use it for portraits or engagement photos unless I'm going for some creative look.

The lens that stays on my camera 95% of the time is the 24-70 2.8. LOVE that lens! In fact, I sent it to Nikon to get some dust out and didn't have it for a short-notice quickie wedding on Sunday and really missed it. I used my 24-105 4-5.6 and 35-70 2.8 (both older models), but they're just not the same.

I've never handled the 16-35, but it seems like a limited range to me. Generally, in the course of a wedding, I'm limited to being further away and need a bit more zoom. That's why I like the 24-70 paired with the 70-200 on another body. I'm guessing you could get by with the 70-300, but it does have a smaller aperture.

Keep the D70 as an emergency backup, but plan on upgrading to something else in the long run. Buy another flash so you have a backup as well. You don't want to be at a reception without a flash- the pop-up flash is useless.

If there's one thing I've learned over the years is not to settle for a lesser product. Buy what you know will be the best for the job. Nikon wouldn't sell lenses in the same zoom range at drastically different prices if there wasn't a drastic difference between them.

As for studio lights, a lot of people really like Alien Bees. They're fairly cheap, lightweight, and easy to use.

In case you're wondering- here's my primary wedding kit (I have a second-shooter who works with me too):
D3s, D700, D200 in a bag on call if needed
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105 micro, several other lenses on hand just in case (35-70, 24-105, a macro)
two sb-900s, two sb-800s (I set up one or two remote flashes for formals and sometimes at the reception)

Hope that helps.
Sam

zoomer

Sellis, my setup is pretty much the same as yours. Take out the 14-24 add in the 85 1.4.

My advice to the OP is to just buy the best if you can, otherwise you will end up buying your kit twice. When the inferior equipment finally frustrates you to the point that you want to upgrade, you will wish you had just bought it to begin with.

RFP

Sam--thanks for the lengthy reply and your kind offer to mail me the close focus filters. I'll send my address when I figure out how to PM you. I don't know if you saw Qarik's note about the Kenko tubes, but I'm wondering if they they are similar to the product you have--are all close focus filters relatively equal?

sellis

RFP wrote: »

Sam--thanks for the lengthy reply and your kind offer to mail me the close focus filters. I'll send my address when I figure out how to PM you. I don't know if you saw Qarik's note about the Kenko tubes, but I'm wondering if they they are similar to the product you have--are all close focus filters relatively equal?

You're welcome. Just click on my name to the left and a menu will appear that says "send a private message".
Honestly, I'm not sure if extension tubes and close-focus filters are the same or not, I've always called them the latter. They screw into the filter threads on the front of the lens. Each one is a different level of magnifier and they can be stacked.

I agree with the above statement about buying the best you can. But I also believe in buying what you need. Like I said, the 14-24 is used, but not often. My macro lens is only used for the closeups of the rings, but it's also a nice portrait lens in a pinch.

Sam

Qarik

tubes are not the same as close focus filters. tubes fit between the lens and the body and simply allow change your min focus distance. The close up filters are like magnifying lens in front of your lens. The fliters can add distortion and chromatic abberation..buy the best you can if you go that route. The tubes are optically perfect since they are just hollow but can reduce contrast if you get cheap ones that reflect ad lto of light inside.

RFP

Qarik wrote: »

tubes are not the same as close focus filters. tubes fit between the lens and the body and simply allow change your min focus distance. The close up filters are like magnifying lens in front of your lens. The fliters can add distortion and chromatic abberation..buy the best you can if you go that route. The tubes are optically perfect since they are just hollow but can reduce contrast if you get cheap ones that reflect ad lto of light inside.

Brilliant! Thanks for the explanation. I am looking at buying some.

Art Scott

For Weddings, Engagements and portraits...the combo of 24-70 / 70-200 cannot be beat and since i like not changing my lenses during a wedding...I prefer my lenses to have close focus abilities...so I shoot Sigma and have never been disappointed.....and I am not shooting any Sigmas with the OS (VR in Nikon speak).....so as I am shooting an engagement or weddding I can go from full length to a super tight ring shot without ever havng to change a lens.......the 24070 is wide enuff that if I have a large wedding party then all I have to do is back up a couple more feet and I have everyone in the VF (I shoot a D300 right now), with the D700 that would not be the case unless the wedding party is beyond large and goes into the HUGE sector.....

I would not use diopter lenses for a wedding, as stated above they simply magnifying lenses placed over your lens and not only can they cause distortion but they are hard to get use to composing with them over the lens.....deciding which extension tube or group of tubes to be used can be difficult at stressful times like weddings also...so a close focusing lens or a true macro lens is the very best option.....and for wedding I feel you need more working distance so you can easily get flash or reflected light on the rings to get that magical sparkle, so macro lenses need to be in the 105-180mm range...that is why I suggest the 70-200 macro from Sigma and the 24-70 macro from Sigma........

GroovyGeek

As stated previously, many of the images on the OPs website are lovely in terms of composition, catching the moment, and the intimacy. I feel that what is missing is the shallow DOF to make the faces really pop out of the images. Rather than WA I would invest in a 85/1.4 or at least 85/1.8. Practically none of the images posted are in tight quarters, so the 85mm would work well.

ARKreations

I've got to agree here. I have the 14-24 and it's an amazing piece of glass, but in the grand scheme of things it gets used very little. I probably use my 85/f1.8 10x as much as the 14-24. My 24-70 is sufficient for 99% of my wide shots. In hindsight, I should have put the money in the 85/f1.4 first. (But now that I have it, I won't give up!)

sellis

The only thing I suggest a diopter lens for are for the ring shots as a temporary solution for a few shots at each wedding. I don't even think you can use them for anything else, but I rarely used them at all. Certainly a macro lens such as a 105mm that can be used for other purposes is a good one to have, but for someone starting out I think the filters are a viable option...plus I'm giving them to her so the price is right.
The only time my 105 is on my camera is for the ring shots, so maybe 5 of the 800 images I present to the couple. I could never show ring shots in my portfolio and still book weddings, it's not like they're needed. I can't think of a single time that I've sold a print of a ring photograph, but they can make their way into the album on occasion.

I've got RFP's address and will be sending them out to her shortly so she can determine if they are useful or not. If anyone else is interested in a set, send me a message and I'll dust them off and mail them to you. They were about to be tossed in the trash anyway.

Sam

zoomer

Just a thought...I shot weddings for the first two years with a 28-75 Tamron, I used more flash back then. At F4 and beyond you can't tell the difference between the more expensive top of the line lenses...the plus kicker is that it is also a macro lens.

With that lens you could shoot most of the wedding and then without having to change lenses or do any setup you could take your ring....or any other closeup shots. It really is very handy to be able to go macro whenever you want.
I still have it and my second uses it, when I want to shoot macro I just switch cameras with her for a minute.

RFP

Art Scott wrote: »

For Weddings, Engagements and portraits...the combo of 24-70 / 70-200 cannot be beat and since i like not changing my lenses during a wedding...I prefer my lenses to have close focus abilities...so I shoot Sigma and have never been disappointed.....and I am not shooting any Sigmas with the OS (VR in Nikon speak)

I would love to have a lens that can shoot macro too--so would you recommend the Sigma 24-70mm Macro vs. the standard? Just curious, why is the standard more expensive?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-24-70mm-Aspherical-Aperture-Standard/dp/B0008032NO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1295455996&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-24-70mm-Aspherical-Aperture-Standard/dp/B0008032NO/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1295455996&sr=8-4

Neither of them are FX, right? (Having trouble finding that info)

RFP

zoomer wrote: »

Just a thought...I shot weddings for the first two years with a 28-75 Tamron, I used more flash back then. At F4 and beyond you can't tell the difference between the more expensive top of the line lenses...the plus kicker is that it is also a macro lens.

I really like that idea--and the price is right. Is this an FX lens? I am reading conflicting things online. Thanks!

zoomer

Yes full frame.
Sorry Art, I did not read all the posts, didn't see you already suggested a combo mid zoom with macro capability.

Art Scott

With Sigma DG = FX and DC = crop.
here si a link to sigma 24-70 :
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/24-70mm-f28-if-ex-dg-hsm-sigma - this lens does not have the Macro designation but it actually has a closer focus distance than my 24-70-EX DG macro by .7 inches ......15.7 inches(old style lens) vs. 15 inches (newest lens).............

I use 2.8 for isolation shots of the ring and bouquet but that is about it and ring shots do sell if done right...the classic shots of rings (on hands) covering bible or flowers do not sell but if done as a 3/4 or full length with rings isolated that does sell......

Yes I would recommend the 24-70 either the older EX DG or the newest EX DG HSM ..........

Art Scott

zoomer wrote: »

Yes full frame.
Sorry Art, I did not read all the posts, didn't see you already suggested a combo mid zoom with macro capability.

no need for apology....more info is good...........

DoctorIt

Good stuff here - but since there's nothing really for sale or wanted here (specifically), I've moved it to the Gear forum to continue the discussion.

Thanks,

RFP

Actually, to confuse things for you, DoctorIt, I am now going to make a list of things I want. After reading over everyone's feedback, I'm interested in purchasing some combination of the following lenses. Let me know if you have one that you'd like to sell--and feel free to comment on them too.

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Any 85mm 1.4 Nikon Compatible lens

digger2

Do not get too confused
Plenty of weddings get shot on a single lens, either a 50mm on full frame or a 35mm crop. Before digital i used to shoot on 6x6 with a mamiya C220 and then a Bronica Sqa. Only ever used the standard 80mm lens.
Look at the floor and you will see the best zoom effect piece of gear you have, your feet.

DoctorIt

RFP wrote: »

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Any 85mm 1.4 Nikon Compatible lens

Not confused, but not moving this discussion back into the flea market. Start a new thread there with a "WTB: ..." title

WeddingShooter

A Nikkor 24-70 2.8 would probably be your best option, short of a 70-200 2.8 VR (used one for $1500) or $2500 for new VRII. I have a Tokina 28-70 2.8 and it's good but my next lense will be the 24-70