One lens for wedding photography !

DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
edited April 18, 2007 in The Big Picture
OK , I know it doesn't exist but knew it would make you read this post :D .
On another post I was told that my 18-200VR lens is no good for weddings and would like to ask for opinions on what is . Someone mentioned primes which sounds too fiddly for me while others mentioned fast professional zooms like the 17-55 2.8 Nikon . To professional wedding photographers out there , if you had to choose , say , 3 lenses for a wedding [ Nikon prefferably ] , what would they be ?
I have the 18-200VR 3.5-5.6 , tamron 28-75 2.8 di , Sigma 10-20 f4 and Nikon 50mm 1.8 lenses .... which would you use there if you had to choose .
On a similar note I know a professional photographer in America who charges $4000 a wedding , shooting canon , who has displayed some fine award winning photos taken on a tamron 28-200 3.8-5.6 lens , admittedly taken mostly outdoors , but if you can win awards with a super-zoom then why not use them ?
Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .

Comments

  • bsvirginianbsvirginian Registered Users Posts: 241 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    mwink.gif I regularly photograph full weddings with an 18-200.
    bsvirginian
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    Are you a professional wedding photographer ? I get these comments from people like " a 10x zoom can't be very good quality so you must be on the wrong track !" without any justification for their statement , just a prejudice against super-zooms without any real evidence . I would like someone to post a comparison at let's say 18mm , 50mm and 200mm with primes and the 18-200 and actually point out the difference [ besides all the shots they would have missed changing lenses ] before I can be totally convinced that I am on the wrong path . Obviously if I am on the wrong path I want to change but if someone asks me why I use a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and keep changing lenses I want to be able to give a logical answer , not just " the pro's with lots of money use these lenses " .
    As mentioned I've seen images that have won awards taken with super-zooms , not that it settles the argument but it does say a lot more than " you're on the wrong path because 'most' super-zooms are not good quality "
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
  • dragon300zxdragon300zx Registered Users Posts: 2,575 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    The Tamron is a great wedding lens. For canon shooters I would recommend a 10-22, the tamron or a canon 24-70 2.8L, canon 70-200 2.8L.

    The main thing is fast glass for low light situations.

    The main thing is that you need to know your gear, and know what it can do. You need a lens that is fast focusing, extremely sharp, great bokeh, etc.

    I find most of my wedding clients love images I wouldn't consider good, and I find alot of photographers charging way more than me with images that are technically horrible (the entire dress 100% blown out no detail at all). I've even seen weddings getting shot with point and shoots.

    Like alot of people will say, it's the photographer more than the gear. If you can produce sharp, crisp photos with what you have, etc.

    For the most part I find my 28-75 2.8 tamron takes about 90% of my wedding shots. With the other two lenses I mentioned only getting mounted occasionally. Oh and a 50 1.8 just in case.
    Everyone Has A Photographic Memory. Some Just Do Not Have Film.
    www.zxstudios.com
    http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
  • dancorderdancorder Registered Users Posts: 197 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    I'm not a professional photographer of any kind, but I do own a Nikon 18-200 and have no complaints about the image quality. However, from what I've read on here you might have more trouble with the smaller maximum apertures which means you need more light or flash and less ability to blur backgrounds (the VR does help for stationary stuff though). I've also not used the more expensive lenses but again from what I've seen on here they're probably better made and faster to focus.

    Personally if I was going to be shooting a wedding (even non-professionally) I'd have to buy a spare body and if you've got a spare body using two lenses isn't so much of a problem any more.
    dancorder.smugmug.com
  • dragon300zxdragon300zx Registered Users Posts: 2,575 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    dancorder wrote:
    Personally if I was going to be shooting a wedding (even non-professionally) I'd have to buy a spare body and if you've got a spare body using two lenses isn't so much of a problem any more.

    Ahh I forgot to mention this but dancorder is spot on with this. I always have a backup body on my just in case (usually more than one).
    Everyone Has A Photographic Memory. Some Just Do Not Have Film.
    www.zxstudios.com
    http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 13, 2007
    I have a D50 and a D80 and usually leave the Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the D50 for just in case . Today the high is predicted at 17 degrees C and there is a thick layer of cloud so I might just put the 28-75 on the D80 this time .
    I have also seen some ugly pictures from people who charge more than me , ther are a lot of people out there making a living out of weddings who seem to do it mainly for the money , not the passion of photography . Either that or it has just become a job to them and they have no desire to improve ...
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
  • MitchellMitchell Registered Users Posts: 3,503 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    Desmond wrote:
    I have a D50 and a D80 and usually leave the Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the D50 for just in case . Today the high is predicted at 17 degrees C and there is a thick layer of cloud so I might just put the 28-75 on the D80 this time .
    I have also seen some ugly pictures from people who charge more than me , ther are a lot of people out there making a living out of weddings who seem to do it mainly for the money , not the passion of photography . Either that or it has just become a job to them and they have no desire to improve ...

    I'm glad you're going to try shooting with your Tamron. There will come a time when your trusty 18-200mm will not be fast enough for you. That is a nice consumer lens with good lighting, but if you get in a tough low light situation, you will not be getting any decent pictures for the wedding couple.

    I can generally shoot most events with the Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 lens, but the 85mm, f1.4 does go on for low light shots with no flash available.

    If you are satisfied with mediocre shots just because the bride and groom don't know the difference or because other people produce low quality shots, you are doing both you and your clients a disservice.
    Mitch
    http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    During the preparation at the brides house I quickly took off the 28-75 and put the 18-200 on just for the extra wide angle , even though the Tamron gave some nice pictures I found myself stepping back too often and not being able to get the shot . At the ceremony inside a dark-ish hall the 18-200 yielded a few good shots and a few 'discards' , I should have probably gone with the Tamron there since I never needed too much wide angle shots . In my new thread on selecting another lens though I admit that I need faster glass and am trying to choose between the sigma and tamron in the 17/18-50/55 area . The Tamron seems to win in the reviews .
    I am aiming for a good wide zoom first because I can always crop a picturebut there's a limit to how far back I can walk .....
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
  • MitchellMitchell Registered Users Posts: 3,503 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2007
    Desmond wrote:
    I am aiming for a good wide zoom first because I can always crop a picturebut there's a limit to how far back I can walk .....

    rolleyes1.gifrolleyes1.gifrolleyes1.gif
    Mitch
    http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
  • BlurmoreBlurmore Registered Users Posts: 992 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2007
    SuperZooms
    I know a wedding photographer who shoots with a superzoom for 90% of the job. A Tamrom 28-300 XR DI. He uses the kit lens for stuff wider than 28 (not much). I used to assist him, and shoot 35mm while he shot the Hasse. The 28-300 he has is silly sharp for what it is, especially stopped down to f8 at 300mm. I photograph weddings professionally and use a 17-55 f2.8 EF-S IS, a 70-200 f4 L, an 85 f1.8 and a lensbaby. One thing to consider using a superzoom and non-TTL primary or secondary flashes, is that the aperture changing from 3.5 WA to f5.6ZOOM while not changing the lights can leave you under exposed, or worse stopped down to 8 zoomed and zoomed out at 4 can leave you overexposed. You must be constantly aware of how your FL is going to change your aperture, unless your just going to use TTL flash on camera all the time, and then you aren't gonna be making 4g's per wedding anyway. Superzooms are for lazy photographers, some old photographers I know are certainly good enough to be lazy and still get spectacular results. But even they will agree that any of their photos taken with a superzoom could be technically improved by creating the shot identically with an appropriate prime or modest zoom.
    http://blog.jasonknauer.com
  • DesmondDesmond Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2007
    I notice quite a few people mention the 85mm 1.8 , I may have to look into that . Last night I ordered my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 . I had liked the look of the 17-70 but as you mention the changing aperture can be a pain .
    The Nikons do wireless flash and maybe in the not-too-distant future I will have an assistant to help with some off-camera flash which I have experimented with a bit in the past . Saturday I have another wedding for a good friend , hopefully I will have had a bit of time to play with the 17-50 , I'll leave it on my D50 to start with ....
    Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
Sign In or Register to comment.