Lens advice... Prime or Wide Angle?

sunxsweet

Hi everybody... I'm currently using a Nikon D40x with the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens. I recently played with a friends Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and LOVED how sharp and fast it was.

I'm going to be going to a friend's wedding in sonoma for a week in the summer and was thinking about buying a second lens. They're hiring a professional photographer. I'd just be supplementing.

I was thinking a prime (Sigma 30mm?) would allow me to get better sharper indoor shots at the more intimate events (dinners, tasting rooms, etc). But a wide angle (Nikkor 12-24mm f4?) to get more sick wide shots for a wedding seems very appealing too.

Could anybody offer me some guidance on which of the two lens would complement the 18-200mm more and which situations should i use the lens so I'm not swapping constantly?

THANKS FOR ANY HELP ON THIS DECISION...

Tee Why

Personally, I think you'll have to decide on what you want.
If you want a closer more intimate type of candid shots, then a 85mm f1.8 maybe a better idea. A 30mm may not be long enough.

Personaly, the 12-24 f4 may not be fast enough for indoor stuff unless you go pretty high with the ISO.

I'd not only think about this wedding but more on your style. If you intend on doing more landscapes in the future, I'd probably go with a 12-24. If you intend to do more shooting, especially in low light with a normal lens, then the 30mm.

sunxsweet

that's a good thought... i definitely won't be doing too many landscapes. what type of wide lens would be suitable for a wedding? i feel like i see a lot of weddings shots with a wide lens. thanks for pointing out the wide i listed may not be fast enough for indoor shots.

i didn't think of a 85mm. that might be useful if i wanted an intimate shot from like two tables away... but that wouldn't be functional for people at my table within 6ft.

i think i'd like more of a photojournalistic style to capture moments.

what do most photographers do at weddings? do they switch lens all the time? or do they basically pick one for each event (cocktail, ceremony, reception) and run with it?

Tee Why

You may want to consider something in the 17-50mm f2.8 range if you want a PJ style.

swintonphoto

sunxsweet wrote:

what do most photographers do at weddings? do they switch lens all the time? or do they basically pick one for each event (cocktail, ceremony, reception) and run with it?

I usually carry two cameras each with a different lens (usually the second camera has my 50-200mm 2.8-3.5 Zuiko). However, I do about 95% of my wedding shots with my standard zoom (14-54mm 2.8-3.5 Zuiko). I find it gets enough light in most situations to get good results. But, I definately think having a good low-light lens is a plus. The two lenses I use the most get pretty good results in low light. So, I am not switching lenses much. I find I can't during the ceremony because things are often moving too fast.

sunxsweet

so why would a 17-50mm f2.8 be anymore photojournalistic than the 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 (76°-8°)? i think the max angle is about the same... is the half stop difference in aperature that big of a difference that I would want to carry both?

I know you didn't specify a specific model... but I just compared it against the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 (79°-22°). plus, it seems like the 17-55 is a huge price to pay for an overlapping lens with half stop improvement. let me know if i'm wrong.

Tee Why wrote:

You may want to consider something in the 17-50mm f2.8 range if you want a PJ style.

sunxsweet

looking around.. i seem to be stuck with the sigma 30mm f1.4 (~$370) as the only fast low light option around at that speed because nobody else has an autofocus for this type of lens.

if on the other hand i had a d80... i could simply get a nikkor 50mm f1.4 (~$280) or the 1.8 (~$120) and probably be just as happy... that's almost the difference in price between the d80 and the d40x... (~$150)....

dilemma dilemma...

Tee Why

A 17-50mm is a common walking around range that is often used for general purpose shooting and hence popular. In a dark room that 1/2 stop may mean the difference between a blurry shot or a clear shot. You can bump up the iso, but inside you probably will be shooting around 800, so going up to 1600 may introduce way too much noise. On a Nikon D40x, I'd prefer to stay at or below ISO 400 to reduce noise for prints.

I took some casual snaps at my buddy's wedding with a 10-20mm, 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8, and a 200mm f2. Mostly used the 20 and the 50 primes.

Take a look and see.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/3234292_ZmCew#179625703

ziggy53

sunxsweet wrote:

so why would a 17-50mm f2.8 be anymore photojournalistic than the 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 (76°-8°)? i think the max angle is about the same... is the half stop difference in aperature that big of a difference that I would want to carry both?

I know you didn't specify a specific model... but I just compared it against the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 (79°-22°). plus, it seems like the 17-55 is a huge price to pay for an overlapping lens with half stop improvement. let me know if i'm wrong.

The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is going to yield much better quality wide open than the 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 wide open, plus the 17-55mm f2.8 is a constant aperture so at 55mm the lens can still be at f2.8. The 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 is more like f5.

The Nikkor 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR is a convenience lens, but if you want really great quality you really should have at least 2 lenses to cover that range and the constant aperture lenses tend to be much better quality.