Nikon Wedding and Portrait Lenses

RFP · January 18, 2011

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[/URL]

I appreciate general feedback on my images too.

Thanks everyone!

Matthew Saville · January 18, 2011

Hi Rachel!

I like your work so I'll happily give my encouragement and input! ;-)

First of all, I honestly just don't care very much for many of the zooms that are available on full-frame. They're huge, heavy, and expensive. I don't know if you've shot an entire wedding day yet with a setup like the D700 and a 14-24 or 70-200, but it HURTS. Both your shoulders, and your wallet.

Call me a sissy, but I also have artistic reasons for avoiding such obscene lenses. I feel that when I use a smaller crop-sensor zoom at a wedding or portrait session, people let their guard down because they don't see me as this big-bad pro who's intruding on their genuine moments...

So personally, even though I love love LOVE the D700 and a couple 1.4 primes for when the portraits are important or the light is low, (SOOO excited about the new 35 1.4!) ...I'm sticking with a D300s / D7000 for when I need 2.8 zooms. I've owned the Sigma 50-150 2.8 for over three years now, for example, and it is an amazing lens. Just as sharp as a 70-200, and like a pound lighter + way smaller even with the hood on. And when it comes to wide angles, my favorite is the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Again, SUPER sharp, it actually gives the 14-24 a run for it's money and can *beat* the 17-35 2.8 and 16-35 f/4.

Especially at those ultra-wide angles, you're already doing great in low light because you don't need much shutter speed, and DOF isn't really all that critical because you're already shooting super-wide either way. So, MY VOTE is to spend more money on a prime or two for that D700 you already have, and then get a crop-sensor zoom or two for a D300s or D7000.

My philosophy is all about putting the most money into the gear that will see the most use. If you spend all your time shooting around the 70-200 range, then a pro-grade 85 prime and a 70-200 or 50-150 should be where you spend your money first. If you shoot TONS of wide angle images, then maybe invest in the Nikon 24 1.4 or 35 1.4, and whatever 2.8 zoom you fancy.

Personally, having shot weddings for about 7 years now, my perfect, ultimate kit would include a Nikon 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 on a D700 or D800, and then a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 on a D300s or D7000. Oh and I'm also excited about the new Sigma 150 2.8 macro with stabilization, that'd go great on either sensor format. I had the original Sigma 150 2.8 before, and it is one of the sharpest macro lenses ever made!

Alright, good luck deciding! I'm sure a ton of people will reply and just say "buy the 14-24 or the 16-35!" ...but I am definitely encouraging you to FIRST think about which focal lengths truly define your style, and what your priorities are in the long run, before you go and spend $2K on a lens you may hardly ever use...

=Matt=

PS: When it comes to lighting, I've stuck with hotshoe flashes so I don't have any recommendations on big studio lights. I'm sure others will recommend the default, Alien Bees.

When it comes to TRIPODS though, this landscape shooter knows pretty much every brand on the market. It firstly depends on if you like twist-lock or lever-lock, and how you would prioritize weight VS ruggedness. If you don't ever plan on hiking miles with your tripod, I recommend a nice solid aluminum tripod from Manfrotto, Induro, or some of the other "generic" makers like Benro or Giottos. They used to be JUNK, but now their ~$200 models are actually quite good quality if you aren't dropping them on concrete all the time, or yanking the legs really hard. Then, I can't recommend anything less than the best when it comes to heads. Get a Manfrotto head maybe with a grip-action ball if you need to work fast, or just a normal Manfrotto ballhead or 3-way head depending on how it feels to you in a store. Or, if you do lots of landscape photography on the side, just bite the bullet and join the amazing Arca Swiss system; you'll love it. Really Right Stuff makes a very small but very strong ballhead with a gorgeous quick-release mechanism. It'll sent you back by another $200+ though, so in the end you can expect to pay $300-400 on a good long-term tripod solution. I honestly can't recommend any complete system that costs much less than $300, not unless they're both Manfrotto and you plan on using VERY lightweight camera gear on such a tripod.

Good luck again!

RFP · January 18, 2011

You are so kind--thanks for the encouragement and great advice. I already have back pain and I will take all your experience into consideration about the weight of FX lenses. I also have to concur on the artistic value to be had from unobtrusive cameras. I've been able to get some great shots with my little D70 because people forget you are there.

catspaw · January 18, 2011

have to chime in and vote for the 85mm 1.4 here! yes it's a prime, but it's GOOD and LOVELY and on a fullframe, I personally love the combination. Presuming your shooting style allows you to use a prime (not everyone likes them), it's a great combination.

Matthew Saville · January 19, 2011

RFP wrote: »

You are so kind--thanks for the encouragement and great advice. I already have back pain and I will take all your experience into consideration about the weight of FX lenses. I also have to concur on the artistic value to be had from unobtrusive cameras. I've been able to get some great shots with my little D70 because people forget you are there.

Yeah, it sounds to me like you're a prime candidate for my lens choice philosophy. The 35mm f/2 and 85 mm f/1.8 are affordable, quality lenses for a D700 if you can teach yourself to shoot with primes. Or of course some day you can upgrade to the uber-expensive Nikon 35 1.4 or 85 1.4, without getting too much heavier compared to a 70-200 2.8 or something.

I love shooting weddings with a D300 and D700, no vertical grips, and just a prime and a DX zoom. Call me crazy, but I LIKE to be mistaken for uncle bob, or even go completely un-noticed. I can interact and schmooze when the time is right, but when I see a moment I want to capture, I want to be able to just go for it without turning heads. I guess I'm not Mike Colon with the 200 2.0 at weddings,

!

=Matt=

insanefred · January 19, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Hi Rachel!

Call me a sissy,

Sissy!

RFP · January 19, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Hi Rachel!

Personally, having shot weddings for about 7 years now, my perfect, ultimate kit would include a Nikon 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 on a D700 or D800, and then a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 on a D300s or D7000. Oh and I'm also excited about the new Sigma 150 2.8 macro with stabilization, that'd go great on either sensor format. I had the original Sigma 150 2.8 before, and it is one of the sharpest macro lenses ever made!

Good luck again!

If I can't afford the Nikon 85mm 1.4 at this point, do you think the Sigma 85mm 1.4 prime would be comparable? I don't want to spend 1K and then realize I should have just spent 2K to begin with in a few years....

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-85mm-1-4-EX-Nikon/dp/B003NSC2XE/ref=sr_1_21?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1295457652&sr=1-21

Allan FG · January 19, 2011

For a tripod head I went for one of these instead of a ball head.

Matthew Saville · January 21, 2011

RFP wrote: »

If I can't afford the Nikon 85mm 1.4 at this point, do you think the Sigma 85mm 1.4 prime would be comparable? I don't want to spend 1K and then realize I should have just spent 2K to begin with in a few years....

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-85mm-1-4-EX-Nikon/dp/B003NSC2XE/ref=sr_1_21?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1295457652&sr=1-21

I'm actually testing the Sigma 85 1.4 this weekend at a wedding; and so far I LOVE it. Built like a rock, sharp as heck, and moderately snappy / accurate. I've also tested the Sigma 50 1.4 by the way and I definitely like that lens too.

However, I gotta say the Nikon 85 1.4 D, (the old one not the new one) is great too, and the Nikon 85 1.8 is a great value for roughly $300...

=Matt=

RFP · August 8, 2011

Hi Matthew!

You've been so helpful with other things, that I thought I would ask for some more advice about tripods and heads. I am at the point where I really need one for my work--its taking off, which is great. But reading forums on tripods is like reading forums on Nikon vs. Canon, everyone is so opinionated!

I went to the local Penn Camera to try out some inventory and I ended up taking home the Induro Carbong Fiber legs (CT-214) $400. I am very happy with them. I am not so sure about the ballhead I purchased (I have two weeks to try it out and return it if necessary). They didn't have any RRS or Swiss Arca in stock--really nothing but Manfrotto and Benro. I purchased the Benro Ballhead B1 $166 as it was about the best they had in stock and seemed quality to me.

Since then, I have read really mixed reviews about Benro online. Its seems they used to be awful about four years ago and now no one writes about them at all (though product reviews on B&H and Amazon are good, for whatever that's worth).

I don't think I NEED to get the top of the line RRS, but I could be convinced.

Comments from anyone are welcome.

Rachael

zoomer · August 8, 2011

D700
24-70 2.8
35 1.8 (sharp wide open works great with full frame)
70-200 2.8
85 1.4 (get the Sigma)

This is what I use. I could do fine with just the 24-70 and the 70-200 if necessary.
I can't remember ever wishing I had anything wider than 24 on full frame.

I love that 35 1.8 for later in the evening for ambient light photos when there is no light. If you can afford the 1.4 it might be even better....the 1.8 is tack sharp wide open.

85 1.4 I use less and less.

I never use a tripod for anything....shooting people that is.

Don't get the 16-35 vr it is an F4 lens. Don't get the 14-24..don't need to go that wide.

Best advice is to save your money and buy the Nikon 24-70 2.8 first.

Qarik · August 8, 2011

14-24mm (if you need it)
24-70mm
70-200mm

is all you need.

jpc · August 8, 2011

The Nikon 85 1.8 is not sharp until 2.8 and the bokeh is horrible. I recently sold mine and picked up the Sigma 85 1.4 and it absolutely blows it out of the water.

Check out this thread. Many of his shots were taken using a D3 (D700), a 50 1.4 Sigma and an 85 1.4 Nikkor. The focal lengths obviously work well for him, but it does depend on your style.

insanefred · August 9, 2011

necro post?

Matthew Saville · August 10, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

necro post?

It looks like someone resurrected this thread to ask a question about tripods...

Here's my bottom line: The difference between buying a Benro / Giottos / Induro ballhead, versus an RRS, Markins or Kirk etc. head, is simply a matter of time and longevity. The RRS etc. heads are built to last forever, plain and simple. The other brands will feel nice and smooth for a while, they'll seem to be high-quality for a year or two, but eventually they'll fall apart or just stop working smoothly. Spending an extra few bucks on a decent ballhead was the best thing I ever did for myself, actually. My RRS ballhead was stolen a while ago and I miss it a lot. I too just bought another "generic" tripod, a Giottos that came with a ballhead. It seemed nice and sturdy and smooth for the first 6 months, but now I'm starting to see the cheapness. I was just in my local shop the other day and I saw a Gitzo tripod in for repair; seriously that thing must have been at least a decade old. I worked the leg locks a little bit and WOW they were still smooth as butter.

So my answer is indeed that I can only recommend the long-term option to others. I think I have finally learned my lesson too, after buying one super-cheap tripods and two "generic but good" tripods over the past ~6 years...

This article written by Thom Hogan always manages to ring true:

http://bythom.com/support.htm

Take care, and good luck!
=Matt=